9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Mis-declaration of value, Confiscation of goods, Redemption fine, Penalty imposition
In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai, the issue revolved around the mis-declaration of value of two consignments of 'Brass Ash Dross' appraised by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner did not accept the proposed values based on the Metal Bulletin Editorial Office, London, as no evidence was presented regarding deliberate mis-declaration or illegal foreign exchange. Consequently, proceedings for mis-declaration and penal action under section 112 of the Customs Act were dropped. The Central Board of Excise & Customs observed that the Metal Bulletin price adopted for assessing the value did not represent the transaction price as per Valuation Rules. They directed that the goods should have been confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Act and allowed redemption upon payment of a suitable fine and penalty. The Collector's failure to impose a penalty led to the filing of appeals, arguing for the imposition of penalties due to established mis-declaration. Upon hearing the department's representative and considering the case records, the Tribunal found that the assessments were provisional and finalized at US $ 545 per MT after detailed analysis. The values were determined based on the copper content and contract prices, not comparable to Brass scrap prices. The Tribunal emphasized that provisional assessments should not lead to confiscation, especially when values are enhanced based on valuation rules without evidence of illegal remittance or intent to evade duty. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal highlighted that penalties should not be imposed without establishing mens rea or intent to under-value. In this case, as no mens rea was proven, the Tribunal found no basis for imposing redemption fines or penalties on the importers. Consequently, the appeals were rejected based on the lack of evidence supporting mis-declaration or intent to evade customs duty.
|
