2019 (3) TMI 52 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - LED TVs were misdeclared as LED TV panels - confiscation - penalties - Held that - The law of admission is absolutely clear that admissions needs no further proof unless and until contrary is proved or are withdrawn. I observe that despite being summoned for more than four times and despite being recorded twice there is no retraction on part of the appellant for the admission of impugned LED TVs to have been procured by way of improper imports. Rather the statement of the co-noticees goes on to further corroborate the admission of the present appellant - there is no infirmity in the order under challenge while directing the confiscation of goods being the result of improper import. BIS Certification - Held that - It is an acknowledgement on the part of the appellant that BIS Certification is required for all such LED TVs, which are measuring 32 Inches and above, as is also apparent from the appellants emphasis about the information received from Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated 24th May, 2017. Though appellants defense is that the LED TVs recovered from their premises are of 80 CMs. i.e. 31.5 Inches, measurement being less than 32 Inches, no BIS registration is required - Perusal thereof shows that LED for Samsung brand as well as for Sony brand are mentioned to be of 32 Inches. The appellant could not produce any other document to support that the dimension thereof was 31.5 Inches. in absence thereof and in view of the above noticed acknowledgement on part of the appellant - thus, the adjudicating authority has committed no error while holding these LED TVs of 32 Inches for which mandatory BIS Certification is required as per Electronic and Information Technology goods (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 as was notified on 3rd October, 2012. There is no infirmity in the order under challenge, same is hereby upheld - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding mis-declaration of LED TVs as LED TV panels, confiscation, and penalties based on improper import and lack of BIS certification.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original arising from a show cause notice regarding mis-declaration of LED TVs as LED TV panels and subsequent re-fitting for sale in the domestic market. The Department conducted searches, recovered LED TVs from the appellant's premises, and proposed confiscation and penalties. The appellant challenged the absolute confiscation, arguing that the TVs were below 32 inches and did not require BIS certification. The appellant claimed to be a small trader and sought to set aside the order.

2. The appellant contended that the confiscation was erroneous as the LED TVs were below 32 inches and did not need BIS certification. The Department argued that no authenticated documents proving proper import were produced, and the appellant admitted to purchasing the TVs without bills from local sellers offering discounts. The Department relied on model numbers and confirmations from companies to support the confiscation. The Department urged dismissal of the appeal.

3. After reviewing the record, it was noted that LED TVs were recovered during searches in the appellant's presence, and detailed information about the seized TVs was recorded. The appellant's statements indicated knowledge of improper imports and purchasing goods without bills for profit. The appellant's admissions were corroborated by co-noticees, and no retractions were made. The order directing confiscation was upheld based on the admission of improper imports.

4. Regarding the BIS certification requirement, the appellant argued that TVs below 32 inches did not need certification. However, details in the record and the appellant's acknowledgment indicated that the LED TVs were 32 inches, requiring BIS certification as per regulations. The adjudicating authority was found to have not erred in holding the TVs to be of 32 inches, necessitating BIS certification. The order under challenge was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.