9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he import by the main appellant, is the second appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the main appellant through the second appellant filed a bill of entry on 19/09/2016 for clearance of goods imported from China. On the same day, the second appellant filed a request for amendment of the said bill of entry on the ground that goods covered by another invoice dated 16/09/2016 have not been included in the bill of entry. The amendment was allowed and the goods were subjected to detailed examination. On such examination it was revealed that some of the goods declared were found in excess quantity; the description and model/brand of the imported items were different than what was declared. The imported items are mainly branded or unbran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst examination before assessment of the goods. The learned Consultant pleaded that they have no intention to mis-declare any items. The main appellant is importing these items for the past 10 years from the similar set of suppliers. Earlier they had no problem of such lack of full details on the import consignments. Expecting certain possible mistakes of the consignment they have requested for examination. There is no mis-declaration of value. The redemption fines imposed for reexport of goods are very high. The redemption fines require revision. Accordingly, the main prayer of the learned Consultant is only with reference to reduction of redemption fine and penalty on the main appellant. 3. Regarding the second appellant he submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to escape the penal consequences by filing an amendment in the bill of entry. Even after such amendment on physical verification it was found that there are huge variations in the quantum, description and value of the imported items. As such, the learned AR supported the findings of the Original Authority. He also submitted that considering the gravity of the offence, the redemption fine and the penalties are reasonable and justified. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. It is clear that initially the appellants filed a bill of entry with one invoice and thereafter requested for amendment by adding another invoice of the same date. The description and the quantity of the import consignments were also amended. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e all of 16 GB capacity. In actual fact, only 50 pieces were of 16 GB capacity and the large balance was either 32 or 64 GB. Lastly, the importer declared that the consignment contains 36 pieces of iPhone7 while the truth was that there were only 15 pieces of this brand and model and remaining 21 pieces were iPhone7 Plus which is a costlier model. Not only are these discrepancies significant they have a direct bearing on the total assessable value of the goods and hence the duty liability which would both the obviously much higher for the quantities and the specifications/ models actually found in the consignment. It is also true that in one case i.e. Touch Glass the actual quantity was found to be less by 53 pieces (1800 against declared q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituation is totally untenable and this cannot be the basis for a claim that the appellants are not liable for any mis-declaration made in the bill of entry. It is also clear that being aware of the standing instructions and the practice followed by Assessing Authorities in respect of such sensitive consignments, the appellants asked for first check examination. This is apparently to avoid the penal consequences that may arise in case the authorities find out discrepancies upon detailed examination of the import cargo. We are not convinced with the submissions of the appellants regarding their bonafide act with reference to the clearance of the present impugned consignments. Accordingly, the charge of mis-declaration against the main appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne or to reduce the same to a minimum. Reliance was placed on certain decided cases. We note that for goods valued at Rs. 44.39 lakhs and Rs. 19.61 lakhs redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs have been fixed. We note the said redemption fine is on the higher side as per the standards generally adopted in respect of fixing of redemption fine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Stoneman Industries-2011-TIOL-12-SC-CUS held that a standard formula cannot be laid for imposition of redemption fine and penalty. In the present case, the goods have been re-exported. The appellant, apparently could not sell these items in domestic market for any profit. Considering the facts of the case, we find the fines could be fixed at Rs. 5 lakhs and Rs. 2 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
