2005 (9) TMI 567 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of grammage in imported textiles under DFRC Scheme.
2. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of substituted DFRC licence for textiles with different grammage.
4. Interpretation of Notification No. 46/02-Cus. regarding assessment of goods.
5. Alleged mis-declaration by importer and admission of grammage discrepancy.
6. Application of penalty and liability for mis-declaration.
7. Requirement of original DFRC for clearance under Notification 46/02.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of textiles under the DFRC Scheme with a discrepancy in the declared grammage. The Customs officers discovered the actual grammage to be higher than declared, leading to a show cause notice for mis-declaration and confiscation under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Commissioner confirmed the confiscation and duty demand based on the mis-declaration. However, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision stating that a claim for exemption on the Bill of Entry does not amount to mis-declaration for confiscation. The mis-declaration was contested, and the Tribunal found no intentional misrepresentation by the importers.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Notification No. 46/02-Cus. regarding the production of a valid DFRC licence at the time of debit after goods assessment. It was concluded that the rejection of the substituted DFRC licence by the Commissioner was not justified as the goods were not assessed when the initial licence was produced.

4. Regarding the confiscation under Section 111(o), the Tribunal emphasized that confiscation can only occur after an exemption is granted. Since no exemption was granted in this case, the goods could not be confiscated under Section 111(o). The Tribunal also highlighted the necessity of a clear intention to mis-declare, which was not evident in this situation.

5. The Tribunal considered the conflicting statements regarding the importer's admission of mis-declaration and found no substantial evidence to prove intentional misrepresentation. Both parties agreed that there was no financial benefit in mis-declaring the grammage, indicating a lack of deliberate wrongdoing.

6. The requirement of producing the original DFRC for clearance under Notification 46/02 was emphasized by the Tribunal. The case was remanded to the original authority for reassessment based on a valid DFRC, setting aside the previous order for confiscation and penalty.

7. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision to support its findings and allowed the appeal by remanding the case for further assessment while keeping all issues open for both parties to address.