9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods, Mis-declaration, Confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, Imposition of penalty
In this case, the appellants imported loose brass scrap but upon physical examination, it was found to contain copper scrap as well. The additional collector of Customs ordered confiscation of the scrap under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, but allowed redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The appellants claimed that the copper scrap was supplied by mistake, mis-declaration charges were wrongly invoked, and penalty imposition was unjustified as they had no knowledge of the copper scrap. They also argued that both copper and brass scrap fell under the same tariff heading, hence no mis-declaration occurred. The tribunal noted that the importer failed to show any inquiry into the supplier's mistake regarding the copper scrap and upheld the lower authority's decision of confiscation. The tribunal also rejected the argument that Section 111(m) was inapplicable due to both types of scrap falling under the same tariff heading, emphasizing the difference in value and market recognition of copper and brass scrap. Consequently, the tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the original authority's order, dismissing the appeal. This judgment primarily dealt with the classification of imported goods, mis-declaration, confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, and the imposition of a penalty. The tribunal analyzed the circumstances where the appellants imported brass scrap but were found with copper scrap as well. The tribunal considered the arguments made by the appellants regarding the mistake by the supplier, the misapplication of Section 111(m), and the lack of knowledge about the copper scrap. The tribunal emphasized the importance of evidence and inquiry by the importer into the supplier's error, ultimately supporting the lower authority's decision of confiscation. Additionally, the tribunal addressed the argument that both types of scrap fell under the same tariff heading, explaining the applicability of Section 111(m) based on value and market distinction between copper and brass scrap. The tribunal's detailed analysis of the issues involved provided clarity on the classification, mis-declaration, and confiscation aspects of the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the original authority's order.
|
