9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, confiscation, reduction of redemption fine and penalty
Mis-declaration of Goods: The case involves an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal that upheld the Order-in-Original but reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant, Thai Airways. The appellant sought regularization of unmanifested/excess landed consignment described differently in various documents. The House Airway Bill indicated "Computer Parts," the Master Airway Bill stated "Capacitors," and the accompanying Invoice mentioned "Computer parts." The regularization application was dismissed, leading to confiscation and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the fines and penalties after adjudication. Confiscation and Reduction of Fines: During the proceedings, the appellant did not appear despite prior notice, prompting the judge to proceed with the case. The Departmental Representative argued that the mis-declaration made the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The discrepancy between the descriptions in the Master Airway Bill and House Airway Bill was highlighted, indicating mis-declaration by the appellant. The judge noted the appellant's responsibility for the mis-declared goods and their casual approach to the appeal process. Consequently, the judge rejected the appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to reduce the fines and penalties. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the mis-declaration of goods by Thai Airways, leading to confiscation and penalties. The discrepancy in descriptions in various documents indicated the appellant's responsibility for the mis-declaration. Despite the reduction of fines and penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was rejected due to the appellant's failure to appear and the clear evidence of mis-declaration. The judge emphasized the appellant's accountability for bringing in unmanifested goods and upheld the decision not to interfere with the reduced fines and penalties.
|
