Aggarwal Traders Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that imported goods are liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act as restricted goods are imported in violation of the provisions of ITC(HS) Import Policy and the goods were not correctly valued.
Facts-
The appellant has filed this appeal to assail the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by which the orderpassed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs rejecting the declared assessable value of the goods and re-determining the same and ordering for confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposing penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 19623 , has been upheld, and the appeal has been dismissed.
The appellant had filed three Bills of Entry for clearance of the goods described as Defective Tinplate Coil and Defective Tinplate Misprint Sheets under Customs Tariff Heading 7210 12 90.
The Special Investigation Intelligence Branch investigated the three Bills of Entry and noticed that the declared price of the goods was below the Minimum Import Price and, therefore, violated Policy Condition No. 1 of the ITC(HS) Import Policy which prescribed that the specified defective items can be imported free, except those for which the CIF value of imports was below the value specified for the said items.
Additional Commissioner noted that since the importer had undervalued the imported goods and, therefore, misdeclared the value in the entry made in Bills of Entry under section 46(1) of the Customs Act, the goods became liable for confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act. The Additional Commissioner thereafter proceeded to re-determine the assessable value.
Conclusion-
Held that the Additional Commissioner has noted that as the importer had tried to import the restricted goods in violation of the provisions of the ITC(HS) Import Policy and the value had not been correctly declared, the goods were liable to confiscation. There is, therefore, no error in the order.
As the goods were held to be liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act, penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act has been correctly imposed.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
Aggarwal Traders1 has filed this appeal to assail the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) 2 by which the order dated 25.09.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs rejecting the declared assessable value of the goods and re-determining the same and ordering for confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposing penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 19623, has been upheld, and the appeal has been dismissed.
2. The appellant had filed three Bills of Entry in August 2020 for clearance of the goods described as „Defective Tinplate Coil and Defective Tinplate Misprint Sheets‟ 4 under Customs Tariff Heading 5 7210 12 90. The declared unit price of the goods in the three Bills of Entry is as follows:
