Appellate Tribunal Orders Re-adjudication on Imported Goods Mis-declaration

The Appellate Tribunal directed re-adjudication of a case involving mis-declaration, classification, valuation, and excess quantity of imported goods. It found issues with the classification under heading 6001.22, requiring expert textile opinions for re-evaluation. The Tribunal disagreed with the valuation method based on local market prices and instructed proper notice to importers for classification. The case was remanded for de novo adjudication within eight weeks due to prolonged retention of goods.

---

---

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, Classification of goods, Valuation of goods, Excess quantity of goods

Mis-declaration of goods:
The case involves importers who declared Polyester Fabrics but were issued a show cause notice for importing polyester knitted fabrics of velvet surface without a license. The Commissioner found mis-declaration, deliberate circumvention of EXIM policy, and undervaluation. The goods were classified under heading 6001.22, not 6002.99 as claimed by importers. The mis-declaration led to penalties under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Classification of goods:
The Commissioner relied on the Chemical Examiner's report confirming mis-declaration and classified the goods under heading 6001.22. Importers claimed classification under 6001.92, but the Commissioner disagreed, stating 6001.22 was correct. The goods required an ITC license and were not freely importable. Market inquiries confirmed the goods were marketed as velvet cloth. The Commissioner valued the goods at US $ 2.85 per meter under Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

Valuation of goods:
The Commissioner compared the goods' value with similar imports and local market prices to determine undervaluation. The Commissioner rejected the transaction value and applied Rule 6 for valuation. The importers argued for maintaining the transaction value, citing different end use and classification of goods in previous cases.

Excess quantity of goods:
The Commissioner found the imported quantity to be 10,300 meters, not 10,000 as declared, leading to mis-declaration under Section 111(m). The importers claimed the excess was due to stretching properties and trading practices, not intentional mis-declaration. The issue of excess quantity was to be redetermined with technical opinions.

Judgment:
The Appellate Tribunal found issues with the classification under 6001.22, directing re-adjudication after obtaining expert textile opinions. The Tribunal disagreed with the valuation method based on local market prices and directed proper notice to importers for classification. The case was remanded for de novo adjudication within eight weeks due to prolonged retention of goods.

---