2011 (2) TMI 1356 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rejects Revenue's appeal in EPCG Scheme case. No deliberate mis-declaration found.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI Versus JAYPEE HOTELS LTD.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal in a case involving mis-declaration of goods under the EPCG Scheme. The respondent's admission of error, ... - Issues: Mis-declaration of goods under EPCG Scheme, Enhancement of value without consent, Imposition of redemption fine and penaltyMis-declaration of goods under EPCG Scheme:The case involved a dispute where the respondent imported polished marble slabs under the EPCG Scheme but the goods did not match the specifications mentioned in the license. The respondent admitted the mistake, and the value of the goods was enhanced, leading to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties. The Revenue contended that the respondent mis-declared the goods and did not have a valid license to import the quantity. However, the respondent argued that they placed an order for specific sizes which were not available from the supplier, and there was no deliberate intention to mis-declare. The Tribunal found that the respondent had amended the license and had discharged the duty liability, concluding that there was no mis-declaration with malicious intent.Enhancement of value without consent:The adjudication order included an enhancement in the value of the goods without obtaining the respondent's consent, contrary to Board's Circular. The Tribunal noted that this enhancement lacked proper justification and violated procedural requirements. As the respondent had already paid duty based on the transaction value, the Tribunal deemed the enhancement unjustified. This lack of reasoning for the value enhancement was a key factor in the Tribunal's decision to reject the Revenue's appeal.Imposition of redemption fine and penalty:The Revenue sought to restore the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the respondent for the alleged mis-declaration. However, the Tribunal disagreed, highlighting that there was no evidence of deliberate mis-declaration by the respondent. The lower appellate authority had correctly set aside the adjudication order due to the absence of any malicious intent or mis-declaration. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, emphasizing that without clear allegations of intentional mis-declaration, the imposition of fines and penalties was not justified. The appeal filed by the Revenue was ultimately rejected by the Tribunal.