Case Law Details
Aestrik Techno-Signs Vs The Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
The goods were imported declaring a certain value which was doubted by the officers and so the goods were opened and examined. After opening and examining and comparing the goods with the value of corresponding goods in contemporaneous imports the officer founds that the goods were mis-declared in terms of value. Therefore, he sought to reassess the duty. Section 17 (5) of the Customs Act requires the officer to pass a speaking order in case of reassessment unless the importer accepts the reassessment in writing. In this case, the importer accepted the reassessment in writing. Further he also gave in writing that he does not want a show cause notice or a personal hearing. He further undertook to pay fine and penalty. The extent of undervaluation found by the officers was substantial. The declared value was only Rs. 15,141/- whereas the actual value was calculated to be Rs. 9,21,951/-. The duty leviable was correspondingly increased from Rs. 2,634/- as per the declaration to Rs. 1,60,327/-. Since the declaration by the importer did not correspond to the actual value of the goods as determined they were confiscated under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act and were allowed to be redeemed under Section 125 of the Customs Act on payment of a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 90,000/- was also imposed on the appellant under Section 112 (a) readwith Section 114AA of the Customs Act.
On appeal, the First Appellate Authority upheld the assessment of duty and only reduced the fine from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh and penalty from Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-
Given the factual matrix of the case, we find that the appellant had indeed declared the value of the goods incorrectly and on being pointed out agreed to reassessment of duty and waived his right to show cause notice and personal hearing. The appellant also undertook to pay the fine and penalty. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is not required to issue a speaking order. The reassessment of the duty is final as it was uncontested. Considering the declared value was only about 2% of the actual value as re-determined, we find that the Adjudicating Authority was correct in confiscating the goods under Section 111 (m).
Since, the appellant has, by mis-declaration rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 the importer is liable for penalty under Section 112 (a) readwith Section 114AA.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
