Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Itc Limited vs C.C.- New Delhi ( Import & General) on 9 December, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Appeal No. C/51613/2014-CU[SM}
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 638/2013 dated13.11.2013, by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), IGI Airport, New Delhi- 110037]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
ITC Limited .Applicants
Vs.
C.C.- New Delhi ( import & General) .Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. Ajay Aggarwal and Mullika Joshi , Advocate for the Applicants Sh. Sanjay Jain, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 30.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 09.12.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 55780 /2016-CU(SM) Per V. Padmanabhan The Appeal is directed against the Order-In-Appeal dated 13.11.2013. The issue involved in the case is that the importer placed an order for a pump which was supplied free of charge and indicated nominal charge of 35 Euro [Rs. 2,583/-] in the invoice. The courier company submitted documents accordingly with customs for clearance. On examination, doubt regarding value was expressed and finally the importer submitted an invoice for the goods and the value of the subject good was found to be Euro 1628 [Rs 1.20 lakh]. Hence proceedings were initiated and goods were confiscated and allowed redemption against Redemption fine and Penalty. The appellant is seeking revision of Redemption Fine and Penalty stating that the goods were sent free of charge by the supplier as free replacement.
2. The Original authority, at the time of clearance of the goods imposed redemption fine of Rs 60,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as a penalty of Rs 30,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act ibid. In the impugned order, the RF and Penalty was reduced to Rs 19,000/- and Rs 10,000/- respectively.
3. The contention of the appellant is that there is no justification for confiscation of the goods. Their submission is that there was no mala fide intention on their part to mis-declare the value of the import goods. The goods have been sent as free of charge, replacement for which no payment is involved to the supplier. The value of Euro 35 [Rs 2,583/-] was indicated by them on the basis of the invoice wrongly given by the supplier. The correct value was not originally declared to the Customs on account of a mistake on the part of the suppliers who gave the wrong invoice with the consignment. They relied upon the case law in Guru Ispat Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Calcutta [ 2003 (151) E.L.T. (Tri. Kolkata), Surya Roshini LTD. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2002 (147) E.L.T. 84 ( Tri. Del.), Aniketa Krishna International vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur[2012 (280)E.L.T. 131 (Tri.- Del.) and argued that in the light of bonafide mistake, the goods are not liable for confiscation. Consequently, no redemption fine and penalty is imposed.
2. Heard Shri Ajay Aggarwal and Mullika Joshi, ld. Advocates for the appellant and Ld. Departmental Representative, Shri Sanjay Jain, for the respondent.
3. Ld. DR submitted that the goods have been rightly confiscated under Section 111(m) inasmuch as the goods did not correspond in value to the declaration made in Bill of Entry. He further argued that but for the fact that the goods were checked and examined by Customs, the wrong declaration of value would have gone undetected.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant declared an amount of Euro 35 [Rs. 2,583/-] as the nominal value of the import goods which were received by them, on free of charge basis being a replacement for a defective part already supplied by the same supplier. On examination of the goods by Customs, the value declared appeared to be low. Subsequently, the appellant procured the correct invoice from the supplier. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the wrong declaration of value was on account of a mistake by the supplier sending in giving the wrong invoice. However, no mala fide intention can be attributed to the importer. Section 111(m) provides for confiscation of any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act. In the present case the Bill of Entry was filed declaring the value as 35 Euro [Rs 2583/-]. However, the goods were found to be valued at Euro 1628. It is also a fact that but for the Customs opening the consignment, the mistake in declaration of value would have gone unnoticed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, even though the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m), there is no justification for imposing any redemption fine and penalty. According, the Impugned order is modified and the appeal is disposed off.
[Pronounced in the open court on __09.12.2016__] (V. Padmanabhan) Member (Technical) RS 5 C/51613/2014-CU[SM]