2017 (5) TMI 28 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - case of appellant is that Out of the past consignments of 167 MTs of TFSSD Coils imported, customs baselessly alleged that 100 MTs of coils were good coils. There was neither misdeclaration of value or description. Therefore, there should not have been levy of duty, redemption fine and penalty - Held that - There is absolutely no material came to record to appreciate that appellant was innocent and imported defective coils and sheets. Misdeclaration found by Customs could not be contradicted leading any cogent evidence, by the appellant. NML report proved misdeclaration of description of goods imported by visual examination itself - It may be stated that once the goods were subjected to be confiscation by the aforesaid act, that became smuggled goods under section 2 (39) of the Customs Act, 1962. In such circumstances, there is no possibility at all to grant any relief to the appellant or to intervene to the adjudication finding. Thus duties, penalty and redemption find imposed on various misdeclared consignments are confirmed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods.
2. Levy of duty, redemption fine, and penalty.
3. Allegations of mischievous conduct against the appellant.
4. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that there was no misdeclaration of the Tin Sheets imported as they were Secondary/Defective and not "Tin Free Sheets/Seconds." Customs baselessly alleged that some coils were good coils, but the appellant insisted there was no misdeclaration of value or description, citing a previous Tribunal order. The appellant sought to set aside the adjudication.
2. The Revenue contended that misdeclaration occurred in both live consignments and previous imports, justifying the imposition of duty without leniency on redemption fine and penalty.
3. Customs found Tin Sheets misdeclared as secondary and defective in the appellant's custody, leading to seizure and confiscation. The live consignment also had misdeclaration issues, with physical examination revealing discrepancies in goods description and value, indicating mischievous conduct by the appellant.
4. The Tribunal found no evidence contradicting Customs' misdeclaration findings. The Adjudicating Authority conducted a thorough inquiry, noting a deliberate misdeclaration by the appellant and manipulation of invoices. The goods were deemed smuggled under the Customs Act, 1962, leading to confirmation of duties, penalties, and redemption fines on the misdeclared consignments, with the appeal dismissed.