2017 (3) TMI 1013 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of goods - goods declared as starch whereas goods imported was synthetic diamond powder (greenish in colour) and white colour powder, which was found to be other than starch - penalty - redemption fine - Held that - there is right conclusion that the appellant importer mis-declared the goods so imported with an intent to evade customs duty - there are no reliable evidence to prove that the supplier made the supply of goods inadvertently without there being any order being placed by the importer for the said goods. There are enough consistent evidences to indicate that the contention of inadvertent supply by the foreign supplier is not based on the facts and circumstances available on record - redemption fine and penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Mis-declaration of imported goods leading to confiscation, redemption fine, customs duty, and penalties.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in garment manufacturing, imported 'Starch' but faced conflicting reports from CRCL regarding the nature of the goods.
2. The department retested the samples, confirming the goods as synthetic diamond powder and 'other than starch,' leading to a demand of customs duty amounting to ?39,83,541.
3. The Order-in-original upheld the charges, leading to confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties on the appellants.
4. The appellants argued that the second test report confirming 'starch' should prevail, citing relevant case law.
5. The Revenue emphasized physical examination findings and CRCL reports indicating mis-declaration.
6. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were mis-declared, importing synthetic diamond powder instead of 'starch,' based on circumstantial evidence.
7. The Commissioner's order highlighted discrepancies in goods' description, supplier's admission, and circumstantial evidence supporting mis-declaration.
8. The appellants claimed inadvertent supply by the foreign supplier to avoid penalties, but lacked evidence to support this claim.
9. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, citing lack of interference due to established reasons.
10. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the original order's decision on 08.02.2017.