9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Consideration of amendment to IGM under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods under Sections 111(f) and (g) of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 1: Consideration of amendment to IGM under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 The appellants sought an amendment to the IGM to correct the quantity and weight declared. The Additional Commissioner adjudicated the matter, holding the excess quantity was unloaded without permission, leading to the imposition of a redemption fine and penalty. The appellant argued that refusal of amendment should only be on grounds of fraudulent intention to evade duty or substantial revenue implication. They cited a Board's Circular and a CESTAT decision supporting their stance. The Commissioner and Additional Commissioner did not find fraudulent intention, and the penalty was deemed unjustifiable. The Tribunal, considering the unchanged value of goods and absence of intent to evade duty, allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order. Issue 2: Imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods under Sections 111(f) and (g) of the Customs Act, 1962 The J.D.R. contended that the goods were liable to confiscation as they were unloaded without permission, exceeding the declared quantity. However, the Tribunal noted that the goods' value remained constant, and there was no intent to evade duty or misdeclare the goods, which were not prohibited. Given the absence of fraudulent intention on the importer's part, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner's decision and providing consequential relief. This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, clarified the considerations for amendments to IGM under the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for fraudulent intention or substantial revenue implications to justify penalties. It also highlighted the importance of assessing intent when determining confiscation of goods under relevant sections of the Customs Act.
|
