9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he invoice declaring the same to be made of Cotton. Supplier did not deny the error made and admitted the same. The 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 are true as per his information and knowledge penalty imposed cannot be justified as he has not knowingly and intentionally , filed the documents which department claim to be erroneous. Hence penalty under section 114AA cannot be justified. It is agreed that certain incomplete descriptions were made in the bill of entry for which the goods became liable for confiscation under Section 111 and appellant liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) - But without much justification for such errors which have been committed by the foreign supplier the redemption fine and penalties imposed in terms of Section 125 and section 112 (a) seem to be on higher side - the ends of justice will suffice if the Redemption fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s J G Impex Pvt Ltd. (IEC No. 0494012528) under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.1 The appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 5426071 dated 03.03.2018 for clearance of goods declared as 'Tape Ribbons Strips for labels (for industrial use) {of various sizes}. The goods were classified under tariff item i.e. 58063190 which covers goods composed of cotton. The value was declared as per the supplier invoice dated 08.02.2018 to be USD 27,767.20/-. 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 USD 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments 4.2 Commissioner (Appeals) has by the impugned order observed as follows: 6.3 l find that the discrepancy was found during the physical examination of the consignment. The appellant's submission that it was supplier's mistake is just an afterthought as the misdeclaration was detected only on examination by the Customs officer and there is difference in duty between the declared item and that actually imported. Had the Customs officer not examined the goods the discrepancy would have gone unnoticed. The appellant had self-assessed the goods. Further, re-classification of goods due to mis-declaration in increase of duty liability. The acts and omissions of the appellant rendered the confiscation as discussed above. They were aware that the goods composed classification under Tariff Item 58063200. The act of the appellants go to prove willfully misstated the classification of goods by knowingly/deliberately filing the under heading Tariff Item 58063190 to evade payment of applicable Customs duty. claiming a particular classification which resulted in payment of less duty than was app rendere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 of the case. 4.3 It is not the case of the revenue that appellant had intentionally misdeclared the goods. In fact he has declared the goods as per the purchase order, invoice and packing list of the supplier. This fact is also established by the fact that he had actually made the payments to the foreign supplier as per the purchase order and invoice treating the impugned goods to be made of Cotton. All these facts if taken into account would establish that appellant had not ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
