9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Misdeclaration of goods leading to confiscation, imposition of penalty and redemption fine under Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 437/2003, dated 17-12-2003, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. The appellant, a 100% E.O.U., had filed a Bill of Entry for clearance for a warehouse of 100 reels of decorative paper. However, during the examination of the goods, it was discovered that there were three reels in excess of the quantity mentioned in the packing list of the invoice, leading to allegations of misdeclaration by the Revenue. 2. The Original authority demanded duty of Rs. 1,68,252 on the impugned goods, citing liability for confiscation under Section 111(e) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, and a redemption fine of Rs. 25,000 were imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original, prompting the appellants to approach the Tribunal for relief. 3. The appellant's representative argued that the excess reels were inadvertently sent by the foreign supplier, as confirmed in a letter from the supplier stating the unintentional loading of three extra reels on the container. Given the 100% E.O.U. status, it was contended that the goods qualified for exemption under Notification No. 52/2003, dated 31-3-2003, and that there was no mala fide intent. The confiscation, penalty, and redemption fine were challenged on legal grounds. 4. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the case records and noted the inadvertent loading of three excess reels by the foreign supplier. Considering that the goods were meant for use only in the E.O.U. unit and the absence of any evidence of mala fide intent, the Tribunal concluded that the goods rightfully qualified for the exemption notification. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods, as well as the penalty and redemption fine, were deemed unwarranted, leading to the allowance of the appeal with consequential relief. 5. The Tribunal pronounced the operative portion of the order in court upon completion of the hearing on 10-3-2006, thereby providing a favorable resolution to the appellant in light of the circumstances surrounding the misdeclaration issue and the inadvertent excess supply of goods by the foreign supplier.
|
