Tribunal upholds goods confiscation for mis-declaration, fake certificate. Penalty reduced, fine maintained.

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods due to mis-declaration and submission of a fake country of origin certificate. The redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs was maintained as no market inquiry details were provided. However, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 50,000 as it was considered excessive compared to the duty evaded. The appeal was dismissed except for the penalty modification.

---

---

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, Country of origin certificate authenticity, Imposition of redemption fine, Imposition of penalty

In this case, the appellant imported Copper Scrap claiming concessional duty rates based on the country of origin being Sri Lanka. However, it was discovered that the Copper Scrap declared as Dream variety was actually of Clove variety, which has a higher copper content and value. The authenticity of the country of origin certificate was also questioned. The assessable value of the goods was re-assessed based on chemical analysis and prevailing prices, and the benefit of exemption for goods of Sri Lanka origin was denied. The goods were confiscated under the Customs Act, and a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs were imposed.

The appellant argued that they imported two varieties of copper scrap in good faith and were unaware of any misrepresentation. They claimed that the value of the goods was not accurately determined and that the redemption fine was imposed arbitrarily. They cited a Supreme Court judgment to support their argument that redemption fines should be based on market surveys. The appellant contended that the penalty imposed was excessive compared to the duty evaded.

The Revenue contended that the appellant mis-declared the goods and submitted a fake country of origin certificate, potentially gaining an ineligible duty benefit. They argued that the redemption fine and penalty were justified considering the misrepresentation and duty implications.

The Tribunal acknowledged the mis-declaration of goods and the fake country of origin certificate, leading to the confiscation of the goods. They noted the higher value of the Clove variety scrap and upheld the confiscation. Regarding the redemption fine, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the original order, as market inquiry details were not provided due to the age of the case. The penalty imposed was deemed excessive in relation to the duty evaded, and it was reduced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 50,000. The appeal was dismissed, except for the modification in the penalty amount.

---