2018 (5) TMI 686 - AT - Customs

Tribunal modifies redemption fine and penalties, emphasizes accurate goods declaration

The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal, restoring the Order-in-Original but modifying the redemption fine and penalties. The judgment ... Mis-declaration of imported goods - confiscation - Held that: - extra items have been found including adult jacket ‘Versace’ brand. In particular, it is evident that the branded goods bearing the brand name Versace stand imported in the consignment which has not been declared at all - there has been mis-declaration on the part of the importer and hence, confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111(l) is upheld. Valuation of imported goods - Held that: - Since the importer had failed to advance any documents / invoice to substantiate the value of the goods, the transaction value stands rejected and the value of the goods have been re-determined as per Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - It is settled position of law that the facts which are admitted need not be proved. In the case of CCE, Madras vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. [2004 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it was held that once it is an admitted position by the party itself, that these are parts of a Chilling Plant and the concerned party does not even dispute that they have no independent use, there is no need for the department to prove the same. Appeal allowed in part. Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, Re-determination of imported goods' valueThe judgment pertains to an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods. The respondent-assessee imported goods such as Baby Caps, Cloth Gloves, Baby Bootie, Baby Tights, and Baby Tops, but discrepancies were noted during examination, including the presence of an adult jacket of 'Versace' brand not declared in the Bill of Entry. The Manager of the assessee firm admitted to the mis-declaration and undervaluation. The Additional Commissioner re-determined the assessable value, upheld confiscation under Customs Act sections 111(l) and (m), and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the re-determination and penalties. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the mis-declaration and re-determination were admitted by the importer. The Tribunal observed the discrepancies and upheld the mis-declaration, leading to the confiscation of goods.Regarding the re-determination of the imported goods' value, the Customs Authorities rejected the transaction value due to lack of substantiating documents and re-determined the value under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Manager of the importer admitted to the re-determined value and manner of calculating assessable value and duty. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal noted that admitted facts need not be proved. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal highlighted that once an importer admits to the re-determined value and method, they cannot later challenge it. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the re-determination of value carried out by the Customs Authorities based on the importer's admission. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, restored the Order-in-Original, but reduced the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the Partner.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal, restored the Order-in-Original, but modified the redemption fine and penalties. The judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate declaration of imported goods and the consequences of mis-declaration and undervaluation, along with the legal principle that admitted facts do not require further proof in such cases.