9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act. 2. Misdeclaration of value or quantity of goods. 3. Import of goods without a proper declaration. 4. Applicability of penalties under Section 112 of the Act. Analysis: 1. The case involved appeals by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai. The Revenue intercepted 20 post parcels from Hong Kong at the Foreign Post Office in Mumbai, addressed to a firm in Ahmedabad. The parcels contained liquid crystal display watch modules valued at Rs. 25,60,000. The goods were seized on suspicion of being smuggled into the country. 2. Investigations revealed statements from partners of the firm, detailing plans to undervalue the imported goods. However, the goods were seized before any undervaluation occurred. The Deputy Commissioner confiscated the goods under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Act and imposed penalties. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the decision, stating that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) as there was no prohibition on importing watch modules. He also noted that there was no misdeclaration of value or quantity. The Commissioner held that the goods were in transit to Ahmedabad and should not have been intercepted en route, setting aside the penalties. 4. The Department appealed this decision, arguing that the goods could have been cleared at lower prices resulting in revenue loss. However, the Tribunal found the DRI's actions erroneous, stating that the importers were actual users with a valid SSI registration. The goods could be imported under the Open General License (OGL) without an import license. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and (m), and thus, no penalties under Section 112 were applicable. 5. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, upholding the Commissioner's decision and disposing of the case accordingly.
|
