2020 (10) TMI 549 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - Aluminium Scrap Tread - old and used pipes were found - restricted goods or not - Special Import License (SIL) for the import not submitted - rejection of transaction value - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT - Since, correct information was not furnished in the import documents, the transaction value was appropriately rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the value was re-determined considering the same as serviceable goods. The appellant had not submitted any plausible evidence either before the authorities below or the Tribunal that the goods in question were corresponding to the declaration made in the Bill of Entry. Thus, the appellant is exposed to the consequences provided under the statute for payment of differential duty, fine and penalty. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Declaration of incorrect goods in the Bill of Entry.
2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
4. Demand for payment of differential duty.
5. Rejection of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of "Aluminium Scrap Tread" but during physical examination, it was discovered that 50% of the goods were old and used aluminium pipes, falling under restricted category requiring a Special Import License. The appellant did not submit the required license at the time of importation. The authorities ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem on payment of a fine. Additionally, a penalty was imposed under Section 112(a) and a demand for payment of differential duty was made.

2. The department contended that the declaration in the Bill of Entry did not match the actual goods imported, leading to the rejection of the transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The value was re-determined based on the goods found during examination. The appellant failed to provide evidence that the imported goods corresponded to the declaration. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision, stating that the appellant is liable for payment of differential duty, fine, and penalty as per the statute.

3. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, concluded that the appellant's appeal lacked merit. As the appellant could not prove that the goods matched the declaration in the Bill of Entry, the orders passed by the lower authorities were deemed sustainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods, imposition of fine and penalty, and the demand for payment of differential duty due to the mismatch between the declared goods and the actual imported goods. The appellant's failure to provide evidence supporting the declared goods led to the dismissal of the appeal.