2024 (1) TMI 536 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Mis-declaration of imported goods - mis-declaration in respect of number of cartons/number of pieces/number of bulbs in light chain and the declared gross weight - evasion of customs duty - HELD THAT - The present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of the appellant himself in M/S SURENDRA ELECTRICALS VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS (EXPORT) -NEW DELHI (ICD TKD) 2023 (7) TMI 967 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . The facts of the case are absolutely identical where on the basis of an intelligence the goods were examined and were found to be 42% more than what was declared in the bill of entry. The plea taken by the appellant there was also same that due to mistake the supplier sent more goods. The Tribunal observing that the goods were found to be in excess of what was stated in the bill of entry and therefore liable to confiscation under Section 111(l) and (m) and also when excess quantity of goods is established, it was logical for the officer assessing the bill of entry to reject the transaction value because the transaction value reflected in the invoices and other documents was for declared quantity and not for the quantity actually imported. In the factual matrix of the case, the Tribunal found the redemption fine imposed as just and fair Also the penalty under Section 112 (a)(ii) and Section 114AA was upheld. Considering the repeated attempts of the appellant to fraudulently evade the liability of customs duty by deliberately mis-declaring the actual quantity of the goods, the contention of the appellant rejected that no intentional mis-declaration has been made by them and they knowingly did not make any false and incorrect statement with respect to the quantity and value of the goods. The plea taken by the appellant that the error was on the part of the supplier who sent excess quantity, is absolutely unbelievable and unpractical as business dealings and more so in overseas transactions are conducted as per the agreement between the parties and as per the settled procedure. There is no scope of any variation without the consent of both the parties. The present case being of mis-declaration which has been detected only on examination of the goods, it was justified for the department to reject the transaction value and redetermine the same in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules which has been done as per Rule 5. The appellant has contravened the provisions of Section 17 and 46(4) of the Act by intentionally filing wrong declarations and by their acts of omissions and commissions had rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(l) and 111(m) of the Act. The appellant filing the Bill of Entry under self-assessment was duty bound to submit true and correct details. No interference is called for in the quantum of redemption fine as the redetermined value is Rs.50,27,992 41,12,991 total Rs.91,40,983/- and redemption fine is Rs.10,00,000/-, and the same is within the prescribed limit as prescribed under Section 125 which provides that the amount of redemption fine shall not exceed the market value of the goods. Suffice it to say that the appellant is a habitual defaulter importing goods by mis-declaring both on account of quantity and value is liable to penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) and section 114AA of the Act. The impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are mis-declaration of goods, evasion of customs duty, seizure of goods, rejection of transaction value, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, differential amount of duty, imposition of penalties, admission of mistake by importer, reliance on legal precedents, intentional mis-declaration, and habitual default by the importer.

Summary:
The appellant challenged the Order-in-Appeal dismissing the appeal and confirming the original order related to mis-declaration of goods. The goods were seized due to misdeclaration in terms of quantity and weight. The importer admitted the mistake and agreed to pay the differential customs duty. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the transaction value declared by the importer, determined a higher value, and ordered confiscation of goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and duty. Penalties were also imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the case similar to a previous decision involving the same appellant, where excess goods were found upon examination. The Tribunal upheld the redemption fine and penalties imposed. The appellant's defense that the excess quantity was due to the supplier's mistake was deemed unbelievable. Legal precedents were cited regarding admissions and confessions in such cases. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention of no intentional misdeclaration and upheld the rejection of transaction value based on misdeclaration.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant's repeated attempts to evade customs duty through misdeclaration were not acceptable. The appellant's reliance on a different case law was deemed unnecessary in light of the Tribunal's previous decision involving the same appellant. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of transaction value, determination of a higher value, and imposition of penalties. The appellant was found to be a habitual defaulter and liable for penalties under the Act. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

The judgment was pronounced on 10th January, 2024.