COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

Final Order No. 554/2004-NB (A), dated 09-06-2004 in Appeal No.E/180/2003-NB (A), dated 9-6-2004 in Appeal No.E/180/2003-NB (A)

Confiscation- Misdeclaration in description of goods – Description of goods clearly misdeclared as ‘not rechargeable’ to facilitate undervalution- Confiscation of goods warranted – Section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962. – The description of the goods was clearly misdeclared as ‘not rechargeable’. It is hard to under-stand how a clearing agent’s clerk could make such an addition to the description without any basis. In any case, particulars in a bill of entry are declared by the importer. They are responsible for the particulars declared. The confiscation of the goods was entirely in accordance with the law since price and description both were misdeclared. [Para4]

Valuation (Custom) – Invoice covering the import completely lacking particulars of goods sold – Misdeclaration of description of goods resulting in undervaluation – Declared value rightly rejected – Goods to be reassessed based on prices noted by Customs authorities – Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. [Para 4]

Appeal dismissed

REPRESENTED BY: Shri J.S.Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellant.

Ms. K.A.Mishra, SDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per: C.N.B.Nair, Member (T)]. This appeal is directed against the confiscation of a consignment of Batteries imported by the appellant. The appellant filed Bill of entry No. 155017, dated 6-11-2000 at Bombay Customs. The goods were declared in the Bill of entry as under: -

“AA size Battery (Hi-Watt-Republic China) Not rechargeable C&F US$ 0.029 per pc.

“AA size Battery (Hi-Watt-Republic China) Not rechargeable C&F US$ 0.031per pc.” (Emphasis supplied)

MOHAN SALES (INDIA) v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

However, when the consignment was examined it was observed and the goods were as under: -

“Item 1- Hi Watt KR 15/51 1.2 V} NICD Rechargeable

2- Hi Watt KR 15/45 1.2 V}” (emphasis supplied)

2. Thus, examination revealed that the appellant’s declaration of the goods as “not rechargeable” was false and the goods were actually rechargeable. The appellant had produced invoice dated 20^th October 2000 from Busino Industrial Ltd., Hong Kong along with Bill of entry. This invoice also did not indicate whether the batteries were chargeable or not. It only described the goods as “ Hi-watt Brand Ni-CD Battery, AA Size battery, AAA Size Battery”. The per piece price, declared in the invoice for the two varieties were US $ 0.0295 and US $ 0.2315. The Customs authorities also felt that the value declared was also false and too low. They initiated confiscation and other proceedings. The impugned order has noted that the “floor prices noticed in the Customs for the two varieties were 0.1609 and 0.2140 and the approved valuation for the batteries was Rs. 7.50 per piece and Rs. 10/- per piece”.

3. The appellant explained that the clearing clerk had by mistake added the description “Not rechargeable”. They also contended that such statement should not be treated as misdeclaration inasmuch as NI-CD Nickel Cadmium battery are rechargeable, making it clear that the expansion of description by the clearing clerk was only a mistake. It is also being pointed out that the appellant had written to the Customs authorities on 11-11-2000 requesting for amendment of the Bill of entry. The lower authorities rejected the appellant’s explanation and held that description and value of the goods had been misdeclared. The Additional Commissioner revalued the goods @ Rs. 7.50 per piece and Rs.10/- per piece. Thus, fixing the value at Rs. 1.85 lakhs as against the declared value of about Rs.34,000/-. The redemption fine of Rs. 90,000/- was imposed. So also a penalty of RS. 15,000/-. The appellant took up the matter before Commissioner (Appeals). That Commissioner found no merit in the case.

4. In the present appeal, the explanation of the appellant is the same. We have perused the records and have heard both sides. We find no error in the findings of the lower authorities. The description of the goods was clearly misdeclared as “not rechargeable”. It is hard to understand how a clearing agent’s clerk could make such an addition to the description without any basis. In any case, particulars in a bill of entry are declared by the importer. They are responsible for the particulars declared. Further, the entire transaction does not inspire any confidence. The invoice covering the import is completely lacking in particulars of the goods sold. It does not state particulars of goods, which are very essential to valuation. The invoice does not state the voltage, while prices depend upon that. Thus, the documents produced by the appellant could be taken only as issued with vague particulars to facilitate misdeclaration of the goods and under-valuation. Customs authorities were therefore, entirely justified in rejecting the declared value and in re-assessing the goods based on the prices noted by them. The confiscation of the goods was also entirely in accordance with the law since price and description both were misdeclared. In these circumstances, case merits no intervention by an appellate authority. The appeal stands dismissed.