2023 (9) TMI 968 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - Misc. Furniture of Different Types etc - rejection of declared value - redetermination of value on the basis of contemporaneous imports of similar goods - confiscation - imposition of redemption fine - penalty. Can the rejection of the declared transaction value and re- determination of the duty by the original authority and its affirmation in the impugned order be sustained? - HELD THAT - This appeal is against re-assessment in which the appellant waived, in writing, the SCN and personal hearing and in which it had not even disputed that the goods which were imported were much more than what was declared. The question is whether the appellant can, after the goods have been cleared after paying duty, fine and penalty, now dispute the assessment of duty on facts which are now impossible to recheck but which could have easily be re-checked before clearance - similar case up before this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS DELHI VERSUS M/S HANUMAN PRASAD SONS 2020 (12) TMI 1092 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in setting aside the orders passed by the assessing officer on the Bills of Entry.Recycling also holds that if the declared transaction value is rejected, then it has to be determined in accordance with the procedure prescribed in rules 4 to 9. The only difference between this appeal and the one in Hanuman Prasad is that in this case, the re-valuation had to be done because more goods were imported than what were declared which fact has been accepted by the appellant and which it had not disputed during assessment whereas in the case of Hanuman Prasad the re-assessment became necessary because the declared value was much lower than the contemporaneous values and the enhanced value itself was accepted by the importer. In Hanuman Prasad, after accepting the enhanced value and clearing the goods for home consumption, the importer assailed the re-assessment - The assessing officer, having rejected the value under Valuation Rule 12, re-determined it on the basis of contemporaneous imports of similar goods based on the information available in the National Import Database (NIDB). The appellant, having waived the SCN, personal hearing, and having paid the re-assessed duty and clearing the goods for home consumption cannot now ask for the evidence or basis for re-assessment all of which it had waived, thus, putting the department in an impossible situation. Can the confiscation of the imported goods in the four Bills of Entry under section 111(l) and (m) on the ground of mis-declaration of the quantity and their release on payment of redemption fine be sustained? - HELD THAT - It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel that so long as the declaration in the Bills of Entry is as per the invoices, no mis-declaration can be alleged. The charge of duty of Customs and all the restrictions and prohibitions are on the goods imported into India and NOT on the goods said to be imported into India in the invoices or other documents. Usually, the documents match the goods actually imported and it provides a convenient way of assessing and clearing goods. However, in case of differences, what is important is the goods which are actually imported and not just what have been indicated in the invoices. Thus, it is the goods which must correspond to the declaration and if they do not, they will be liable to confiscation under section 111(m). The declaration in the Bills of Entry matching the invoices, bills of lading, etc. is of no avail. The importer is responsible for what is imported and how much is imported. The importer is responsible for what he has imported and it is not sufficient if he files Bills of Entry corresponding to the documents. The declaration in the Bills of Entry must match with the goods actually imported - there are no infirmity in the confiscation of the imported goods in this case. It also needs to be pointed out that the appellant had not contested before the adjudicating authority that the goods were liable for confiscation. In fact, it had, in writing agreed to pay the redemption fine. If the confiscation of the goods is sustained, are the amounts of redemption fine imposed correct or excessive? - HELD THAT - In terms of the second proviso to Section 125, the maximum redemption fine in case of imported goods shall be the market value of the goods minus the duty chargeable thereon. The redemption fine imposed in each of the four Bills of Entry is way below this limit. In the factual matrix of this case, we find that amount of redemption fine imposed is fair and proper and calls for no interference. Are the amounts of penalty imposed under section 112 correct or excessive? - HELD THAT - The penalties under section 112 are a small fraction of the market value of the goods confiscated which is fair and proper and calls for no interference. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the declared transaction value and re-determination of the duty.
2. Confiscation of the imported goods under section 111(l) and (m) on the ground of mis-declaration.
3. Quantum of redemption fine imposed.
4. Quantum of penalty imposed under section 112.

Summary:

Rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules and its re-determination:
The appellant argued that the imported goods (furniture) were traded by number and not by weight, and thus, the mis-declaration of weight should not affect the declared value. The Customs authorities, however, found a significant discrepancy between the declared and actual weight of the goods, leading to the rejection of the transaction value under Rule 12. The proper officer re-determined the value based on contemporaneous imports of similar goods. The Tribunal upheld this re-determination, noting that the appellant had waived the right to a show cause notice (SCN) and personal hearing, and had accepted the re-assessment.

Confiscation of the goods:
The appellant contended that there was no mis-declaration as the Bills of Entry matched the invoices. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the charge of duty and restrictions apply to the actual goods imported, not just the documents. The mis-declaration of the quantity warranted confiscation under section 111(m). The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not contested the confiscation before the adjudicating authority and had agreed to pay the redemption fine.

Quantum of redemption fine:
The appellant argued that the redemption fine was excessive. The Tribunal found that the fine was within the limits prescribed by Section 125, which allows for a fine up to the market value of the goods minus the duty chargeable. The fine imposed was deemed fair and proper.

Quantum of penalty:
The appellant claimed the penalties were excessive. The Tribunal held that the penalties under section 112 were a small fraction of the market value of the goods and were appropriate given the circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, confirming the re-determination of duty, confiscation of goods, and the quantum of redemption fine and penalties. The appeals were dismissed.