9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsisted of Top Coated Polyester Film and masking film. The goods were assessed and duty calculated under prior Bill of Entry as per the particulars contained in the invoice and declaration on the Bill of Entry. However, subsequent examination of the goods showed that while goods under import tallied with the declaration in respect of Top Coated Polyester Film, the rest of the consignment was seven rolls of direct/indirect photo stencil film as against the eight rolls of masking film mentioned in the invoice. The Customs authorities alleged misdeclaration of the goods and confiscated the direct/indirect photo stencil film and imposed a penalty on the appellant. The value of the direct/indirect photo stencil film was fixed at US$ 2.3 per met ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rence as to whether the consignment was declared as masking film or direct/indirect film inasmuch as both the items were under Open General Licence for import. The learned Counsel for the appellant emphasized that when the difference in duty was minimal, it would be clear that the wrong declaration in the documents was only the result of mix up of consignments as explained by the supplier and not the result of any ulterior motive to evade Customs duty or to overcome any import restriction. With regard to the valuation of the goods the learned Counsel submitted that the appellants themselves had imported two consignments of direct/indirect film one @ US$ 1.95 per metre and another @ US $ 2.30 per metre. He submitted that the present consignm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry, it is to be noted that in view of the difference in quantity the difference in value is not much. Further, the appellant had already paid duty at a higher rate under the original declaration. Even on a higher valuation of the goods at US$ 1.95, the difference in duty is less than Rs. 9000. In these circumstances a charge of deliberate misdeclaration of goods may not be viable. It is particularly so, since both varieties of goods were open to import. Accordingly, we are of the view that penal action was not warranted in the present case. With regard to the valuation of the goods, even though the foreign supplier has stated that there is no difference in value between the two consignments, since it is seen that the appellants themselves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
