9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act for misdeclaration of imported goods. 2. Applicability of penalty when goods are abandoned by the importer. 3. Confiscation of goods with false trademarks and brand names. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating authority under Section 112 of the Customs Act for misdeclaration of imported watches. The appellant imported watches from a Chinese company, but the goods received were different from what was ordered. The watches bore brand names like Radio, Omega, and Citizen, contrary to the assorted watches requested. The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty based on misdeclaration. 2. The appellants argued that they did not file a Bill of Entry and abandoned the goods as they were not as per their order. They contended that since they abandoned the goods, no penalty should be imposed. They cited previous Tribunal decisions to support their claim that when an importer abandons goods, no penalty can be imposed. However, the Revenue contended that the confiscated watches with fake brand names were prohibited goods under the Customs Act, leading to penal action against the appellants. 3. The Tribunal found that the appellants did import watches, but the goods received were not as ordered, containing fake brand names. The appellants' argument that they did not file a Bill of Entry to avoid penal action was dismissed. The Tribunal differentiated this case from previous judgments where importers relinquished title to warehouse goods, as in this case, prohibited goods were imported. Since the appellants imported prohibited goods, they were held liable for penal action, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the penalty and confiscation of the goods with false trademarks.
|
