Home
2005(185) E.L.T.95 (Tri.- Mumbai)
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President and Shri Moheb
Ali M.
Member (T)
Versus
Order Nos.
A/212-217/2005-WZB/C-1, dated 3-2-2005 in Appeal Nos. C/561,562,
582,583,
610 & 666/97-Bom.
Valuation (Customs)-
Misdeclaration-Once goods are misdeclared, department has a right to reject
transaction value and revalue them-Second hand garments, which are not
permitted to be imported under import policy, can be assessed as per best
judgment method-Panchnama drawn at time of seizure and value of seized goods
arrived at after examining each piece-No fault can be found with the method –
Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962
[para7]
REPRESENTED
BY: S/Shri Anil Balani and Manoj Sanklecha,
Advocates, for
appellant
Shri
K .K .Srivastva, JDR for the
Respondent
[Order per
: Moheb Ali M, Member (T), - CIU is one of the many agencies in the Customs
Houses. M/s. AL. Yaseen Enterprises
imported garments misdeclaring them as Rags, filed the Bs/E got the goods examined, paid duty applicable to Rags, took
out of charge, loaded the precious cargo into five trucks, took leave of
everyone concerned and were in the process of leaving what one calls ‘Customs area’. The CIU got wind of it and pounced
on the hapless importer, got the consignment unloaded and examined it all over
again. Much to the chagrin of the importers and to the joy of the CIU, it was
found that 84 bales out of the imported goods contained garments and the rest
(9bales and 20 gunny bags) mutilated woollen rags. The consignment was sized
not only for misdeclaration but also for import without a valid licence. These
days only premutilated garments could be imported without a licence.
2. Investigation
revealed that the importer in connivance with the CHA and the dock examining officers perpetuated a fraud. Proceedings
were initiated against the importer and the CHA and his staff under the Customs
Act.. The officers of Customs who examined the goods and gave out of charge
were however spared from the proceedings under this Act as it was found
possible to proceed against them under Conduct Rules. Much can be said on this.
7. We have examined the various
contentions. There is no gainsaying the fact that 84 bales out of 102 bales of
imported goods consisted of non-mutilated garments. We reject the contention
that there is no misdeclaration of goods on the part of the importer. The
argument that since the description on the Bills of entry is in accordance with
the invoice, there is no misdeclaration is disingenuous. The importer in his
statement clearly states that he has furnished the serial numbers of the bales in which mutilated garments
were packed, to the CHA so that only those bales could be examined. This
indicates prior knowledge on the part of the importer that the consignment
largely consisted of garments. Despite
that he chose to declare them as premutilated garments. It appears that he even
attempted to bribe the examining officers to escape detection. As per the then
import policy only premutilated garments are allowed to be imported. The
misdeclared goods as well as the ones which were used for concealing them are
liable to confiscation as rightly held by the Commissioner. In regard to the
contention that valuation of misdeclared goods should have been done on the
basis of contemporaneous import of
similar goods we observe that the once goods are misdeclared the department has a right to reject the
transaction value and revalue the goods. In the case of second hand goods,
garments in this case, which are not permitted to be imported under the import
policy the Department can determine the value as per best judgement method, in
the panchanama drawn at the time of seizure the value of the seized goods is
arrived at after examining each piece. One cannot find fault with this method.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-