9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Misdeclaration of goods as crude casein, denial of exemption notification, confiscation of goods, duty demand, penalty imposition.
In this case, the appellants filed a bill of entry for clearance of goods declared as crude casein, supported by advance licenses. However, upon examination, it was found that the consignment was labeled as technical acid casein on the containers, contrary to the invoice description. A veterinary certificate from the exporting country certified the goods as technical acid casein. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of goods, denial of notification benefits, duty recovery, and penalty imposition. The Commissioner adjudicated the matter by confiscating the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine, denying exemption benefits, imposing duty demand, and penalty. The appeal challenged this decision. The Tribunal considered the certification from the foreign supplier and the veterinary certificate from the exporting country, confirming the goods as technical acid casein. Despite the protein content falling below 70%, the goods underwent processes aligning them with technical acid casein standards as per the certification. The Tribunal upheld the misdeclaration finding under Section 111(o) and the denial of exemption notification. Given the substantial value of the goods, the fine and penalty were deemed appropriate without reduction. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the discrepancy between the declared goods as crude casein and the actual technical acid casein, as certified by the foreign supplier and the exporting country's veterinary certificate. The misdeclaration led to the denial of exemption benefits, duty demand, and penalty imposition, all of which were upheld by the Tribunal based on the evidence presented.
|
