9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Misdeclaration of imported goods, invocation of Customs Act sections, confiscation of goods, under-declaration of value, imposition of fine and penalty.
In this case, the appellant challenged an order related to the misdeclaration of imported goods, where the goods were confiscated with an option for redemption. The appellant argued that there was no intention to misdeclare the goods and that they were declared as per the invoice from the foreign supplier. However, the JCDR supported the impugned order, pointing out discrepancies in weight and description of the goods. The JCDR argued that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, and that the value of the goods had been under-declared. The Tribunal found that the goods had indeed been misdeclared in terms of description, weight, and value. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the invoice, the Tribunal noted that the goods were not rejected or returned to the supplier, but instead cleared after payment of customs duty, fine, and penalty. The Tribunal considered misdeclaration a serious offense under customs law and upheld the order confiscating the goods and enhancing their value, as well as the imposed fine and penalty, deeming them reasonable. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was sustained. This judgment highlights the importance of accurate declaration of imported goods, the seriousness of misdeclaration under customs law, and the consequences of such actions, including confiscation, fines, and penalties. It also emphasizes the discretion of the adjudicating authority in determining the appropriate penalties based on the circumstances of each case.
|
