9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Misdeclaration of imported goods as new instead of used, confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of fine and penalty, validity of EPCG license, reduction of fine and penalty amount.
In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai dealt with an appeal arising from the confiscation of a Liebherr Tower Crane imported from Germany due to misdeclaration as a new crane instead of a used one under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs imposed a fine of Rs. 30 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs under Section 112, while allowing redemption of goods on payment of fine, penalty, and duty at the normal rate without considering the EPCG license presented by the importers. The Tribunal observed that the EPCG license did not indicate the crane's used status, leading to the department questioning why this information was omitted. Despite the importers' claim of seeking an EPCG license for a used crane, the license did not specify this distinction. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation due to established misdeclaration but reduced the fine to Rs. 10 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 5 lakhs considering the project's nature and the importers' minimal profit. The appeal was partially allowed based on these findings. Overall, the judgment addressed the misdeclaration issue, the validity of the EPCG license, and the appropriate fine and penalty amounts. It highlighted the importance of accurate declaration in customs procedures, the significance of license details matching the imported goods' actual status, and the discretion of authorities to adjust penalties based on specific circumstances. The decision underscored the need for transparency and compliance in import declarations while balancing enforcement with fairness in penalty imposition.
|
