2017 (1) TMI 1067 - AT - Customs

Import appeal partially allowed in customs case involving mis-declaration & under-valuation of goods

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal in a customs case involving mis-declaration and under-valuation of imported goods. The importer's claim of a ... Amendment of IGM - misdeclaration - whether pursuant to filing of IGM on 12.11.2015 stating description of Cargo as STC Aluminium scrap Tread as ISRI packing loose/Briquetted net weight 22.096 MT with Ankit Metals as consignee under bill of lading dated 10.11.2015, whether subsequent request by the Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. dated 28.12.2015 for amendment in the IGM in respect of material description from 'Aluminium Scrap Tread 22.096 MT' to 'Aluminium scrap Tread 7.552 MT & Copper Berry/Clove.14.544 MT' on the basis of NOC letter dated 10.12.2015 of M/s Ankit Metals was rightly turned down by the Assistant Commissioner Customs, ICD Loni vide letter dated 12.01.2016 on the ground that there was some alert against the aforementioned IGM? Held that: - I am satisfied that there cannot be a mistake and/or same mistake in a series of documents in the course of import/export trade. Further, it is evident from the facts and circumstances that the shipping line first issues a draft set of bill of lading which is sent to shipper for approval and only after the approval, the shipping line issues the final bill of lading. Thus, under the facts and circumstances, I find that it is a case of mis-declaration, made out on the part of the appellant-assessee with intention to evade Customs duty. Confiscation - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that: - I find that the differential duty involved is only ₹ 1,02,353/- as compared to the bill of entry filed by the appellant. In this view of the matter, the penalty imposed is reduced to ₹ 1,02,353/- under Section 112(a) and the penalty under Section 114AA is reduced ₹ 2 Iacs. Further, redemption fine is reduced ₹ 2 lacs - confiscated goods allowed to be released on payment of fine and penalty. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Amendment of Import General Manifest (IGM)2. Mis-declaration and under-valuation of imported goods3. Confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Amendment of Import General Manifest (IGM):The primary issue was whether the request for amendment in the IGM, initially filed with the description 'Aluminium Scrap Tread 22.096 MT' to 'Aluminium scrap Tread 7.552 MT & Copper Berry/Clove 14.544 MT,' was rightly rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Loni. The amendment was requested based on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the consignee, M/s Ankit Metals, but was denied due to an alert against the IGM. M/s Ankit Metals argued that the error in the material description was a clerical mistake by the supplier and requested the amendment to file a proper bill of entry, which was delayed due to the incorrect IGM.2. Mis-declaration and Under-valuation of Imported Goods:The Revenue contended that the importer, in collusion with the shipping line, mis-declared the goods to evade customs duty. The imported consignment was declared as 'Aluminium Scrap Tread 22.096 MT' in all shipping documents, but upon examination, it was found to contain 7.552 MT of Aluminium Scrap and 14.544 MT of Copper Scrap. The importer admitted the mistake but claimed it was due to an error by the supplier. The Commissioner found that the documents provided by the supplier for the preparation of the bill of lading were consistent in describing the goods as Aluminium Scrap, indicating a deliberate attempt to mis-declare the consignment. The differential duty was recalculated based on the contemporaneous import value of copper scrap, leading to a higher assessable value and duty.3. Confiscation and Penalties under the Customs Act, 1962:The Commissioner held that the mis-declaration and under-valuation of goods contravened Section 30 and Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962, making the goods liable for confiscation. The total assessable value was re-determined, and the differential duty was calculated. The importer was found to have attempted to evade customs duty through mis-declaration and was penalized under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act. The penalties included a redemption fine, a penalty on the importer, and a penalty on the shipping line for their role in the mis-declaration.Judgment Summary:The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, acknowledging the clerical error claim but maintaining that the consistent mis-declaration across multiple documents indicated an intent to evade customs duty. The penalties were reduced considering the differential duty involved was only Rs. 1,02,353/-. The penalty under Section 112(a) was reduced to Rs. 1,02,353/-, and under Section 114AA to Rs. 2 lakhs. The redemption fine was also reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs. The Customs Authority was directed to release the goods upon payment of the modified penalties and differential duty, subject to verification of the duty already paid. The appeal was thus allowed in part, providing some relief to the importer while upholding the findings of mis-declaration and under-valuation.