2017 (8) TMI 206 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - valuation - job-work - Held that - The adjudication held that the goods were confiscable under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962, when mis-declaration of value of export was established under Section 50(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, adjudication holding overvaluation is established. Penalty - Held that - there is no basis for reduction in the quantum of penalty. Redemption fine - Held that - When there is confiscation directed under Section 113 read with Section 50 of Customs Act, 1962, redemption fine is imposable and that shall be ₹ 3 lakhs. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of export value, confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, imposition of penalty

Mis-declaration of export value:
The appellant contended that the value of consignment declared in shipping bills was proper, supported by bills from suppliers and a Chartered Accountant's certificate. However, the adjudicating authority disregarded this evidence, stating that one supplier was a job-worker of machine embroidery and the exported goods did not match the embroidery work done by them. The authority relied on a statement by the appellant's partner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which was deemed incriminating and not rebutted. The absence of evidence regarding job working costs led to the authority valuing the goods based on the partner's statement. The appellant's attempt to show export realization through bank documents was deemed insufficient, and the reliance on supplier documents for defense was deemed baseless.

Confiscation of goods:
The adjudication found the goods confiscable under Section 113 of the Customs Act due to established mis-declaration of export value under Section 50(2) of the Act. The mis-declaration rendered the goods liable for confiscation, as confirmed by the adjudication.

Imposition of redemption fine:
The Tribunal upheld the imposition of a redemption fine, citing precedents such as the case of Om Prakash Bhatia and Siddhachalam Export. It highlighted that duty drawback is contingent on truthful declaration of export value, making mis-declaration a basis for confiscation and redemption fine imposition. The imposition of the redemption fine was confirmed by the Tribunal.

Imposition of penalty:
Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal found no basis to reduce the imposed amount, citing the precedent set by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Mansi Impex. The penalty indicated in the adjudication was upheld, and all appeals by the assessee were dismissed.

Revenue appeal:
The Revenue's appeal centered on the non-imposition of a redemption fine. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the imposition of a redemption fine of ?3 lakhs in cases of confiscation under Sections 113 and 50 of the Customs Act, 1962.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the assessee, upheld the confiscation of goods due to mis-declaration, confirmed the imposition of a redemption fine, and maintained the penalty imposed, while allowing the Revenue's appeal for the imposition of a redemption fine.