Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi)
The appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi challenged an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, which had upheld the adjudication order confirming customs duty, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty against the importer. The dispute arose from a Bill of Entry dated 16 April 2019, in which the importer declared the goods as “Viscose Polyamide Woven Fabric” and classified them under Customs Tariff Item 5516 22 00. Acting on specific intelligence, Customs Preventive officers examined the consignment and drew samples, which were tested by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory. The test report revealed that the goods were actually polyester filament yarn fabric, comprising textured and non-textured polyester, and not viscose fabric as declared.
On being confronted with the laboratory report, the director of the importing company accepted that the goods were mis-declared, stated that the declaration was based on information provided by the overseas supplier, and agreed to reclassification of the goods under CTI 5407 72 00 along with payment of differential duty. Since the goods imported were different from those declared, the proper officer rejected the declared transaction value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The value was re-determined under Rule 5 on the basis of contemporaneous imports of similar goods. Differential duty amounting to ₹19,53,628 was confirmed under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) for mis-declaration but were allowed to be redeemed on payment of a redemption fine of ₹2,00,000 under Section 125. A penalty equal to the differential duty was imposed under Section 114A.
