2017 (9) TMI 759 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of goods - Smuggling - Demurrage and container charges - he undeclared goods were concealed behind the declared goods - redemption fine - Held that - it was revealed that apart from the declared goods there were 41 nos. of undeclared goods also stuffed in the container. A letter has been produced by the appellant in which it is stated that it was due to mistake at the end of the supplier while loading. We are not able to accept this submission in toto. However, the appellant intends to re-export the undeclared goods. The redemption fine is to be imposed for the limited purpose of re-export of the goods - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Issues involved:
1. Early hearing of the appeal due to goods still lying with the department causing demurrage.
2. Allegations of undervaluation and non-declaration of goods leading to confiscation under Customs Act.
3. High Court direction for release of goods and re-export consideration.
4. SCN proposing enhancement of value, duty demand, confiscation, and penalties.
5. Appeal challenging confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties.
6. Arguments regarding mistake by supplier, lack of intention for mis-declaration, and request for setting aside fines.
7. Revenue's argument of mis-declaration and intention to smuggle goods.
8. Tribunal's analysis of declared and undeclared goods, reduction of fines and penalties for re-export purposes.
9. Modification of impugned order to reduce redemption fine and penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellant sought early hearing of the appeal due to the imported goods still being with the department, incurring demurrage and container charges, potentially leading to obsolescence. The tribunal allowed the petition for early hearing based on the reasons provided.

2. The case involved allegations of undervaluation and non-declaration of goods, resulting in confiscation under various sections of the Customs Act. The appellant challenged the confiscation, redemption fines, and penalties imposed by the authorities.

3. The High Court directed the release of a specific quantity of goods upon deposit of differential duty and consideration for re-export of other goods, as per the appellant's request.

4. A show cause notice was issued proposing enhancement of value, duty demand, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority rejected the declared value, leading to confiscation and imposition of fines and penalties.

5. The appeal was filed challenging the orders of the authorities, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) with a reduction in the penalty amount. The appellant sought to set aside the redemption fine and penalties imposed.

6. The appellant argued that the mistake in loading by the supplier led to the undeclared goods and there was no intention for mis-declaration. They requested the fines and penalties to be revoked based on the circumstances.

7. The Revenue contended that the appellant mis-declared the goods, indicating an intention to smuggle the undeclared goods into India, supporting the impugned order.

8. The tribunal analyzed the case, acknowledging the presence of undeclared goods and the supplier's mistake in loading. They reduced the redemption fine and penalty for re-export purposes, modifying the impugned order accordingly.

9. The final decision allowed the appeal in part, with consequential reliefs, reducing the redemption fine and penalty amounts for the undeclared goods intended for re-export, aligning with the ends of justice.

← Previous Next →