9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25.04.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Gr. /H, NO-I, Sheva is upheld as far as the appellant is concerned with the following modifications: i) The duty @ 28.1% (20% BCD, 10% SWS, 5% GST) shall be levied as per revised invoice submitted by the appellant for goods composed of Polyester on the CIF value USD 16,328.28. ii) The Redemption Fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed at para 9 (ii) of the order-in-original is reduced to Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962." 1.2 Vide order in original referred above, Additional Commissioner has held as follows: "9. In view of above discussion and findings, I pass the following order: (C) ORDER i. I reject the decl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.20/-. 2.2 On examination, the goods were found to be of polyester and merit classification under the tariff item 58063200. The appellant accepted that the goods were composed of Polyester. Accordingly goods were classified under Tariff Item 58063200 as against the declared classification under Tariff Item 58063190. Hence the issue of classification has attained finality. 2.3 Since the goods were found to be off polyester appellant took up the matter with the supplier, who vide his letter dated 18.03.2018 admitted the mistake. Supplier vide his letter dated 03.04.2018 revised the invoice value from USD 27,767.20 to USD 16328.28. The appellant submitted the revised invoice to the Custom authorities wherein the CIF value was mentioned as U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evised invoice to the original authority, and sought the assessment to be made as per the revised invoice. The request was not considered by the Additional Commissioner, but was acceded to by the Commissioner (Appeals). On reassessment made as per the impugned order the total duty payable by them has been assessed to be lower than the duty paid by them earlier, hence there can be no intention to evade payment of duty on the behalf of appellants. Though Commissioner (Appeals) upheld for revising the assessment as per the revised invoice he has upheld the order of confiscation reducing the redemption fine from Rs 3,00,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- and the penalty. Since there is no short payment of duty, the order upholding confiscation and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt did not declare the complete description of goods. On combined reading of the description given in the Bill of Entry the declared Tariff Item makes it obvious that the goods declared are made of cotton whereas actually they are composed of polyester. 6.4 Here it was a case of mis-classification of the goods to evade payment of applicable duty. I do not agree with the appellant's submissions that claiming a particular classification the appellant cannot be held liable to confiscation under section 111(m) of the Acne mis-declaration of material particulars was found. I find that the appellant had in the bi Entry which was self-assessed declared the classification as 58063190. The cold description in the Bill of Entry without giving t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned value of the goods, I find that ends of justice would be met if the redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- is imposed on the appellant. 6.5 For the action of the appellant in misdeclaring the description of the goods which rendered the goods liable to confiscation, the appellant is rightly held liable to imposition of penalty under Section 112(a). The appellant by making false declaration, manipulated the description in the invoice by giving incomplete description of the goods to claim classification where lesser duty was payable to evade the payment of applicable duty. Hence they rendered themselves liable to penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 imposed on the appellant by the OA is also not excessive in view circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962, ..... In the present case, the importer has knowingly and intentionally self assessed the subject goods by mis-declaration of description in respect of brand of the goods to evade appropriate duties as the value of the branded goods are more than the unbranded goods. Therefore the importer appears liable for penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962." The above findings are contrary to the assessment finalized determining the duty payable to be less than the duty assessed on Bill of entry originally filed by the Appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) has in his order directed assessment to be made as per the revised invoice which revises the value downwards. Further when the appellant had filed the B/E as per the documents which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
