Tribunal Overturns Confiscation: No Intentional Mis-declaration in Customs Value of Goods, Appeal Succeeds Favorably.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation and penalty under Sections 125 and 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. It determined that the appellant's value declaration, based on the supplier's proforma invoice, did not constitute intentional mis-declaration. The Chartered Engineer's assessment of the goods as used, which led to an enhanced value, did not result in duty liability. Consequently, the appellant's compliance with export obligations was not adversely affected, and the appeal was resolved favorably for the appellant.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal involving mis-declaration of import value, confiscation of goods, and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Mis-declaration of Import Value:
The appellant, a 100% EOU, imported semi-conductor fabrication system under Notification No.52/2003-Cus. The Chartered Engineer appraised the goods as used, leading to a declared value discrepancy. The Commissioner upheld confiscation and penalty under Sections 125 and 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Appellant's Submission:
The appellant argued that as per the law and Foreign Trade Policy, there was no requirement to declare the goods as 'used'. They contended that the value declaration was based on the parent company's invoice, citing relevant case laws to support their stance.

Revenue's Position:
The Authorized Representative reiterated the Commissioner's findings regarding the confiscation and penalty.

Judgment:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had declared the value based on the supplier's proforma invoice and had voluntarily sought a First Check assessment. The Chartered Engineer's assessment of used goods led to an enhanced value, impacting the export obligations. As there was no duty liability and no intentional mis-declaration, the confiscation and penalty were set aside. The appeal was allowed on the basis of these findings.

---