2009 (10) TMI 445 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds mis-declaration charges in appeal on imported goods, adjusts fines to address discrepancies

The Tribunal upheld mis-declaration charges against the Respondent in an appeal regarding imported goods. Despite the declared values for acrylic strips, ... Valuation- The Respondent imported two consignments and filed Bills of Entry declaring the goods as acrylic strips. They also sought for examination of the consignment on first check basis “to avoid any discrepancies in values/weight/description of goods”. The Original Authority held that there was mis-declaration and finalised the value of $140/PMT for acrylic strips; further enhanced the value to US$ 450 from US$ 400 in respect of offcuts and further enhanced the value from US$ 780 to 930 in respect of sheets. He also ordered confiscation of the goods and allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh on the importer. Held that- order of original authority restored with modification. Value of sheets should be adopted as $ 780 MT and demand re-worked. Duty demand in respect of off cuts @ $ 450 restored. Redemption fine fixed at Rs. 1 lakh and penalty at Rs. 5000. Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, discrepancy in values/weight/description, examination report findings, mis-declaration upheld by Commissioner (Appeals), restoration of Original Authority's order, modification of redemption fine and penaltyThe case involved an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the mis-declaration of imported goods. The Respondent imported two consignments declared as acrylic strips but were found to include offcuts and sheets during examination. The Original Authority finalized values higher than declared, leading to confiscation of goods, a fine, and a penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the declared values for acrylic strips but upheld mis-declaration charges, reducing the fine and penalty. The Department argued for restoration of the Original Authority's order due to the discrepancies found during examination, while the Respondent defended the declared values and claimed the goods were ordered as strips. The Tribunal found clear mis-declaration based on examination findings, rejecting the argument that only strips were ordered. The Tribunal modified the values set by the Original Authority, reducing the value for sheets and restoring the value for offcuts. The redemption fine was set at Rs. 1.00 lakhs, and the penalty at Rs. 50,000, considering all circumstances.The issues of mis-declaration, discrepancy in values/weight/description, and examination findings were central to the case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of examination reports and the discrepancies found, concluding that mis-declaration was evident. The debate over declared values versus actual contents was addressed, with the Tribunal rejecting the argument that only strips were ordered. The Tribunal modified the values set by the Original Authority, considering the discrepancies found during examination. The restoration of the Original Authority's order with modifications aimed to address the mis-declaration and ensure appropriate penalties were imposed.The judgment highlighted the role of the Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding mis-declaration charges and adjusting fines and penalties accordingly. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments from both sides, focusing on the examination findings and the discrepancies between declared goods and actual contents. The Tribunal's decision to modify the values set by the Original Authority aimed to rectify the mis-declaration issues and ensure a fair assessment of duties and penalties. The final decision on redemption fine and penalty reflected a balanced approach considering the circumstances of the case and the findings of the examination report.