Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1123 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - goods have been mis-sent by the overseas shipper or there was mis-declaration of goods? - rejection of declared value - Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that:- The goods actually imported are not the same as those declared in the Bill of Entry, but are entirely different set of goods. This clearly shows that the appellants have misdeclared the goods on the Bill of Entry and have sought clearance of undeclared and misdeclared goods in this manner. Appellants do not dispute that the goods found on examination were not the same goods as declared by them on the Bill of Entry. However appellants have submitted that since the goods were mis-sent by the shipper they were not aware of the goods that were shipped and hence they should not be held responsible for the misdeclaration - From the statement of Shri Sunil Jain, Director of Appellant, it can be reasonably concluded that the goods in the consignment under importation are not the goods as declared by the appellants. By mis-declaring the goods, appellants have sought to clear certain goods which were old and used. The clearance of such old and used goods for home consumption in India is not permitted under Export Import policy 2015-20 (Para 2.31 read with Notification No 35 (RE-2012)/2009-14 dated 28.02.2013), without proper authorization from Director General Foreign Trade - the charge of mis declaration of the consignment in terms of description, quantity and value is well founded. There is no merit in the submission of the appellants that the goods were wrongly shipped by the shipper. In fact, these goods were sought to be imported into India contrary to the EXIM Policy restriction and also by grossly undervaluing the same. There is no merit in the submission of the appellants with regards to bonafides, which in any case is not established in this case. Penalty u/s 112 of FA on Appellant Company and its Director - Held that:- Since the Appellant Company and its Director have by their acts of omission and commission have rendered the goods liable for confiscation penalty imposed on them under Section 112 is justified - taking into account the re-determined value of the consignment and the fact that some of the goods sought to be imported were old and used thus restricted under the EXIM Policy the quantum of penalty to is quite reasonable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|