2010 (8) TMI 346 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds department's actions on mis-declared goods, imposes differential duty, fine, and penalty.

VAZ ENTERPRISES Versus COMMR. OF CUS., AHMEDABAD

The Tribunal upheld the department's actions due to the clear mis-declaration of goods by the appellant, leading to the imposition of a demand for ... Confiscation – Misdeclaration - appellant did not come forward with their copies of Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods – assessee also not explained why the details contained in the packing list and the invoices were different and why while filing of the Bill of Entry of the goods contained in the packing list were not incorporated in the Bill of Entry - They have also not explained how the value of 13 items in the invoice could be equal to more than 105 articles as per packing list - assessee not explained why they did not seek and obtain licence for importing old and used items – Finding of misdeclaration upheld Issues:1. Mis-declaration of imported goods in Bill of Entry.2. Reconstruction of Bill of Entry due to missing documents.3. Differential duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty imposition.4. Legal challenge regarding assessment and valuation of goods.5. Applicability of legal precedents to the case.6. Determination of quantum of fine and penalty.Analysis:1. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry declaring imported goods as furniture but included items like washing machines, music systems, etc., not declared. The Bill of Entry was reconstructed as original was missing, revealing undeclared old and used items. The department imposed a demand for differential duty, a redemption fine, and a penalty on the appellant.2. The appellant argued that the department should have appealed against the initial assessment instead of issuing a show cause notice. The appellant contended that valuation was done without their knowledge, and the finding of undeclared goods lacked basis. The department reconstructed the Bill of Entry due to missing documents, leading to differential duty, fine, and penalty.3. The Tribunal found a clear mis-declaration by the appellant, as goods listed in the packing list differed from the invoice. The appellant failed to provide evidence on the value of goods and did not explain discrepancies in details. The appellant's failure to obtain a license for importing old items due to ignorance was noted. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's contentions based on lack of merit.4. Regarding legal issues, the Tribunal differentiated the present case from legal precedents cited by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the decisions cited did not address mis-declaration issues like in the present case. The Tribunal upheld the department's actions based on the mis-declaration of goods and the failure to challenge the assessment.5. Considering the circumstances, including demurrage costs and multiple examinations, the Tribunal reduced the fine and penalty imposed on the appellant. The Tribunal noted the need to consider the actual market price of goods and the appellant's profit while determining the quantum of fine and penalty.This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the mis-declaration of goods, reconstruction of the Bill of Entry, legal challenges, applicability of precedents, and the final determination of the fine and penalty in the case.