Anand Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi)
The appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi concerned the challenge to an Order-in-Appeal confirming reassessment of imported goods, demand of differential duty, confiscation under Sections 111(l) and 111(m), and imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appellant had imported various baby products through a Bill of Entry dated 10.08.2019, declaring specific quantities, classifications, and values. Based on intelligence regarding mis-declaration of value and quantity, the consignment was examined. Upon examination, discrepancies were found between declared and actual quantities, descriptions, and tariff classifications. The total declared quantity was 4771.5 dozens, whereas the quantity found was 4849.5 dozens, along with differences in classification of certain goods.
The goods were seized under Section 110 on the belief that they were liable for confiscation. The proprietor of the appellant firm, in a statement recorded under Section 108, admitted mis-declaration, attributing it to the supplier but accepting responsibility as importer. He agreed to reassessment of value and payment of differential duty, fine, and penalty, and waived issuance of a show cause notice.
Subsequently, the declared value of ₹9,72,020 was rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules. In the absence of identical goods data, the value was re-determined at ₹29,38,629 based on contemporaneous import data of similar goods under Rule 5. Differential duty of ₹8,52,639 was demanded, penalty of ₹5,77,198 was imposed under Section 114A, and the goods were confiscated with an option of redemption on payment of ₹60,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, leading to the present appeal.
