2019 (12) TMI 657 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Importer's Penalties for Misdeclaration, Reduces Fines on Legal Challenge

M/s. Parshav Alloys Versus Commissioner of Customs (I), Nhava Sheva

M/s. Parshav Alloys Versus Commissioner of Customs (I), Nhava Sheva - 2020 (374) E.L.T. 117 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues: Misdeclaration of goods, Confiscation, Penalty, Redemption fineMisdeclaration of Goods:The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner Customs (Appeals) upholding the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties due to misdeclaration. The Additional Commissioner had rejected the declared value of goods and ordered a re-determination based on contemporary import prices. The appellant had filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods declared as Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Secondary/defective sheets. However, upon examination, it was found that the goods were misdeclared with the intention to undervalue them and avoid paying Anti Dumping Duty. The Director of the appellant admitted to misdeclaration and expressed readiness to have the goods assessed correctly. The misdeclaration was based on examination findings and the Director's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.Confiscation and Penalty:The Additional Commissioner had ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. Additionally, a penalty was imposed on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner upheld these orders, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued against the confiscation and penalties, citing various legal precedents and challenging the justification for the imposed fines.Detailed Analysis:The misdeclaration of goods was established through examination findings and the Director's admission, leading to the upheld confiscation and penalties. The appellant's arguments centered on challenging the misdeclaration, referencing invoices, packing lists, and legal precedents. However, the Tribunal upheld the misdeclaration charge, emphasizing the Director's admission and lack of substantial evidence supporting the appellant's claims. The reduction of fines was based on the total differential duty payable, indicating a partial allowance of the appeal due to excessive redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of admissions and examination findings in determining misdeclaration and subsequent penalties, despite the appellant's arguments challenging the basis for the imposed fines.