9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 967X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first before the bill of entry was assessed by the appraising group officers. It needs to be pointed out that normally when a bill of entry is filed the appraising group assesses/re-assesses the bill of entry based on the documents and the goods are examined thereafter. This process is referred to as second appraisement or second check and has advantage of faster processing. The alternative is the first appraisement or first check in which the goods are examined first and thereafter the bill of entry is assessed. This method is followed in few cases and this is one such case. The Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch SIIB of the customs house had also placed an alert in the customs EDI system with respect to the same consignment. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to the importer to redeem the goods valued at Rs. 43,42,301/- on a payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand only) under section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. iv. I re-determine duty on re-determined value as Rs. 15,62,110/- and the same is payable by the importer v. I impose a Penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) on the importer M/s Surendra Electronicals under Section 112 (a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. vi. I impose a penalty of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on the importer under Section 114AA f the Customs Act, 1962. vii. The goods may be cleared upon payment of duty on the re-determined value in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be invoked. (iii) During the pendency of the adjudication proceedings the appellant had incurred demurrage charges and detention charges which were not considered by the Department while imposing the redemption fine. Therefore, it can be said that the adjudication authority has not considered and arrived at the correct margin of profit while imposing the redemption fine under section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) Further, the goods are themselves not liable for confiscation and, therefore, neither any fine under section 125 nor any penalty under section 112 should have been imposed. 6. Learned authorized representative appearing for the Revenue made the following submissions; (i) It is undisputed that quantity declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about 10% of the value of the goods. Section 125 permits imposition of fine not exceeding the market value of the goods and the fine imposed in this case is only about 10% of the assessable value of the goods. Therefore, this does not call for any interference. (vii) The penalty imposed under section 112 (a)(ii) is only Rs. 20,000/- which is also very small compared to the value of the goods. (viii) Penalty under section 114AA has been correctly imposed because the appellant had mis-declared the value of the goods and the quantity in the bill of entry filed before the customs authority. Any letter from the supplier stating that excess quantity was sent by mistake is not tenable. The intention to mis-declare can only be inferred in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also needs to be pointed out that the SIIB officers also received specific intelligence about this mis-declaration and place an alert in the customs EDI system. On examination, the mis-declaration was proved. The difference in quantity is substantial as 42% more goods were imported then what were declared. 10. When excess quantity of goods were found, 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. Once the declared assessable value is rejected under Rule 12 of the valuation rules, valuation should be proceeded under Rules 4 through 9. In this case, rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner confiscating the imported goods and Commissioner (Appeals) upholding such confiscation in the impugned order. 13. Having confiscated the goods worth Rs. 43,42,301/- the Additional Commissioner allowed the redemption on a fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- which is about 10% of the value of the goods. Section 125 of the Act places the restriction that the amount of fine cannot exceed the market value of the goods. In the factual matrix of this case, we find the redemption fine imposed is just and fair. 14. Section 112(a)(ii) provides for penalty on any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act, which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. The penalty imposable in case of dutiab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
