2025-VIL-393-CESTAT-KOL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-393-CESTAT-KOL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Mis-declaration of quantity, Confiscation, Valuation - Appellant imported consignments of different consumer goods and upon 100% examination, the goods were found to be in excess quantity than the quantity declared in the Bills of Entry - Department re-determined the assessable value of the goods and demanded differential duty - Whether the goods found in excess quantity and the undeclared goods are liable for confiscation – HELD - in respect of some goods declared in the Bills of Entry, the quantities were found to be in excess than the declared quantity. Some of the items were found to be not declared - The confiscation of the impugned goods have been done on account of mis-declaration of quantity as well as mis-declaration of value - the explanation given by the appellant that the supplier has loaded excess goods by mistake is not acceptable. The appellant has failed to produce any evidence to show that the goods loaded in excess were due to mistake of the supplier - the mis-declaration of the goods in respect of the Bills of Entry filed by the appellant is established. Accordingly, the confiscation of the goods found to be in excess than the declared quantities in the bills of Entry and the non-declared goods is upheld. However, the confiscation of the goods declared in the bills of entry is set aside - Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for recalculating the duty payable in respect of the excess quantity of goods found on the declared goods and the non-declared goods and the quantum of redemption fine imposable in consonance with the same – The appeal is partly allowed - Whether the differential duty demanded on account of enhancement of value is sustainable - HELD - The Department did not provide any documentary evidence such as copies of invoices, Bills of Entry and relevant invoices to substantiate the higher value of contemporaneous imports of similar goods cited by the Revenue. The transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and there should be cogent evidence for contemporaneous imports to substantiate the rejection of transaction value. In the absence of any allegation of extra payment made by the appellant over and above the transaction value declared in the invoices, the transaction value declared by the appellant is acceptable and the value declared in the invoices is to be adopted for the purpose of determination of Customs Duty payable by the importer - Whether penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act are imposable on the appellant-company and its Director - HELD - The penalty equal to the differential customs duty which is confirmed on account of mis-declaration in quantity/non-declaration is liable to be imposed on the appellant-company under Section 114A of the Customs Act. However, the show cause notice neither discussed any role of the Director nor there were any allegations against him which would render him liable to any penalty. Accordingly, the penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA are not imposable on the Director of the appellant-company.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Credit Notes ITC Reversal in IMS…
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?