Appeal partially allowed, penalty set aside, confiscation upheld. Lack of intent cited for penalty reversal.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty under section 114AA while upholding the re-determined value, confiscation of goods, and penalties under sections 111(m) and 112(a)(ii). The Tribunal found the penalty under section 114AA unsustainable due to the lack of intent, despite affirming other aspects of the impugned order.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Rejection of declared assessable value and re-determination of value.
2. Confiscation of imported goods under section 111(m).
3. Imposition of penalty under section 112(a)(ii).
4. Imposition of penalty under section 114AA.

Detailed Analysis

Issue I: Rejection of Declared Assessable Value and Re-determination of Value
The appellant declared the value of imported Tecmax LPD TV Model-40 at U.S. $66 per piece, classifying them as parts of TV under CTH 85299090. Upon examination, it was found that the goods were complete smart LED TVs, not parts, and the quantity was 742 instead of 740. The appellant agreed to the re-determined value of U.S. $163 per TV and waived the issue of a show cause notice. The Joint Commissioner later adopted a lower value of U.S. $147.5 per TV based on contemporaneous imports by M/s Mittal Impex. The Tribunal upheld the re-determination of the value, noting the appellant's acceptance of the revised value during the investigation and the lack of evidence supporting the declared value.

Issue II: Confiscation of Imported Goods under Section 111(m)
The goods were confiscated under section 111(m) due to discrepancies in the declared nature, quantity, and value of the imported goods. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the confiscation, noting that the goods did not correspond with the entry made under the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-, a decision not contested by the Revenue.

Issue III: Imposition of Penalty under Section 112(a)(ii)
Section 112(a)(ii) allows for a penalty not exceeding ten percent of the duty sought to be evaded or Rs. 5,000/-, whichever is higher. The differential duty in this case was Rs. 13,68,819/-. The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,30,000/- imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, finding it just and fair given the circumstances.

Issue IV: Imposition of Penalty under Section 114AA
Section 114AA requires knowledge and intention to make, sign, or use any false or incorrect declaration or document. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no malafide intention on the appellant's part, noting that the appellant had voluntarily sought the recall of the Bill of Entry. Despite this finding, the Commissioner (Appeals) imposed a reduced penalty of Rs. 13,68,819/-. The Tribunal set aside this penalty, concluding that without intention, no penalty under section 114AA could be sustained.

Conclusion
The appeal was partly allowed, with the penalty under section 114AA set aside, while the remaining parts of the impugned order were upheld. The Tribunal affirmed the re-determined value, confiscation of goods, and penalties under sections 111(m) and 112(a)(ii), but found the imposition of penalty under section 114AA unsustainable due to the lack of intent.

---