TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 dated 03.05.2018 declaring the value of U.S. $ 66 per piece. However, in the Bill of Entry it classified the imported goods as parts of TV under 8529 of the Customs Tariff attracting duty @ 37.47% instead of classifying them under 8528 as complete TVs attracting duty @ 56.16%. The Bill of Entry was processed by the Customs Risk Management System [RMS] and it was not marked for either assessment or examination or for giving out of charge by the Customs officer. However, the appellant doubted the authenticity of the documents and the consignment and on its own requested the officers to recall the Bill of Entry. Accordingly, the Bill of Entry was recalled and goods were examined 100% and it was found that they were complete smart LED TVs and not LED TVs, as declared by the appellant or parts of LED TVs as classified by the appellant. As the goods were different from what was described in the import documents and declared in the Bill of Entry, their value was re-determined @ U.S. $ 163 per smart TV. Further, the total quantity of imported televisions was 742 and not 740 as declared by the appellant. The value was thus enhanced by the Assessing Officer and the appellant had agreed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prietor Shri Sandeep Kumar Goyal under section 114AA. 5. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who, by the impugned order, upheld the order the lower authority except to the extent of reducing fine under section 125 to Rs. 5,00,000/- and reducing the penalty under section 114AA to Rs. 13,68,819/-. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned Consultant for the appellant Shri B.L. Yadav made the following submissions :- (i) The bill of entry was filed by the appellant and it was cleared by the RMS without examination, assessment or out of charge being given by the officers. However, on a bonafide doubt about the authenticity of the documents as well as the consignment, the appellant itself had requested the officers to recall the bill of entry and re-assessed the goods. The goods were re-assessed on the basis of an SIIB Circular of the Commissionerate to U.S. $ 163 per piece instead of U.S $ 66 per piece as declared by the appellant ; (ii) During examination 742 pieces of smart LED TVs were found instead of 740 pieces of LED TVs declared by the appellant. The appellant had contacted its overseas supplier who said that it had inadvertently wro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r at paragraph 5.8 that the appellant had no such intention. Therefore, he should not have confirmed any penalty under Section 114AA. (x) The bill of entry was filed on the basis of documents and supplied by the foreign supplier and therefore there was no intentional or deliberate wrong declaration or mis-declaration and, therefore, the goods were not liable for confiscation under section 111 (m). Consequently, the penalty under section 112 (a) (ii) could not have been imposed upon the appellant. 7. In view of the above, learned Consultant for the appellant prayed that the impugned order may be set aside with consequential relief. 8. Learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Department supports the impugned order. He submits that : (i) In the bill of entry dated 03.05.2018 the goods were declared as "Teckmax LED TV Model - 40 and were classified under CTH 85299090 and a value of U.S. $ 66 per unit was declared. The tariff heading 85299090 pertains to parts of television and not to televisions. On examination, not only was it found that there were 742 pieces of television instead of 740 pieces as declared, but the model of the TV was also completely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er (Appeals) was not justified in setting aside the orders passed by the assessing officer on the Bills of Entry. 49. When on merits it has been found that the Commissioner (Appeals) committed an error in allowing the appeals, it is not necessary to decide whether the appeals against the accepted transaction value were maintainable or not. 50. All the 36 orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that have been impugned, therefore, deserve to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside and the 36 Appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs are allowed". 9. He further submits that the High Court of Allahabad has also held in M/s S.S. Overseas and others versus Union of India [2022 (8) TMI 344 - Allahabad High Court] that where the petitioners had confirmed in writing the acceptance of re-assessment they are exists no occasion to pass a speaking order on the re-assessment and accordingly dismissed the batch of writ-petitions. Therefore, the appellant, having accepted the assessable value of U.S. $ 163 per piece through several letters, cannot now assail the same. Although, the appellant have agreed to U.S. $ 163 per piece as the value, the Adjudicating Authority adopte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the appellant firm has, in response to question 13, stated as follows :- "We had placed the order for LED TV, but it was the mistake on the part of the supplier that they had sent us smart TV and also made mistake in the quantity, as they sent 742 pieces instead of ordered 740 pieces. I wish to say that there is very small difference between LED TV and smart TV that we import i.e. smart TV has Wifi feature. Although we accept our mistake and we undertake to pay the differential duty and penalty, as applicable". 15. In a subsequent statement recorded on 05.09.2018, the following question was asked, Question 7 : You have seen case files of M/s Mittal Impex, M/s KML Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Air Tec Electro Vision Ltd., these TVs and your TVs are of same reputation. What should the unit price of your smart TV? Answer : I have seen the above case file and after observing these, I accept that unit value/price of over 40 Inch TV should be 163 U.S. $ and I undertake to pay differential duty on it. 16. Both the above statements were certified as having been tendered without fear or pressure or any buress. They have not been retracted. 17. We thus, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrespond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under the Customs Act are liable for confiscation under this section. It is undisputed that both the nature of the goods imported and the quantity of the goods imported did not correspond to the declaration made in this case. Further, the value declared was also much lower and was, even according to the documents produced by the appellant, not the price of smart LED TVs which were imported. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the confiscation of the imported goods under section 111 (m) or in giving the option of redemption under section 125 by the Original Authority. While fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- was imposed by the Original Authority it was reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. This reduction of fine has not been assailed by the Revenue. We, therefore, find no infirmity in both the confiscation of the goods and also in the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 20. Section 112 (a) (ii) reads as follows : "SECTION 112. Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. - Any person, - (a) who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do a....