9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962; Reduction of redemption fine; Penalty imposition; Duty liability calculation based on exemption notification claimed by the appellant. Confiscation under Section 111(m): The judgment upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court emphasized that the label or declaration accompanying the goods serves as an entry for import purposes, regardless of who made it. In this case, the goods were declared as electrical equipment without detailed information, leading to the discovery of mobile phones. The court ruled that the lack of proper declaration warranted confiscation under Section 111(m), as per Section 82 of the Act. The court rejected the argument that the appellant's lack of knowledge of the declaration absolved them from confiscation, highlighting the responsibility of the purchaser to ensure accurate declarations. Availability of Goods for Confiscation: The judgment clarified that even if the goods were not physically available, confiscation could still be upheld if the cash proceeds from the disposed goods were in possession of the department. Drawing on legal precedent, the court established that the department's possession of cash from the goods equated to possession of the goods themselves. Therefore, the confiscation upheld by the Commissioner was deemed appropriate. Redemption Fine and Duty Calculation: The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision on the redemption fine, reducing it significantly and directing adjustment from the cash proceeds. Regarding customs duty calculation, the court determined that the value for duty assessment should be based on the amount realized from the goods' disposal, treated as cum duty value. This approach aligned with standard practice where duty is not levied on the original declared value post-disposal. The judgment emphasized that the duty calculation should reflect the actual amount realized from the goods' auction, not the initial declared value. Procedural Compliance and Notice: The judgment addressed the appellant's claim of improper notice regarding goods disposal. However, the court noted that the appellant had been duly informed through correspondence about the requirement for bond and bank guarantee for provisional release. The court highlighted that the appellants were aware of the consequences of not complying with the release conditions, thus absolving the department of improper disposal accusations. In conclusion, the appeal was rejected, affirming the decisions on confiscation, redemption fine, and duty calculation. The judgment clarified that duty calculation should be based on the amount realized from the goods' disposal, treating it as cum duty price. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and upheld the confiscation under Section 111(m) based on the inadequate declaration accompanying the imported goods.
|
