2017 (4) TMI 1297 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - it was alleged that in the bill of lading and bill of entry declared the goods as MS retrieved Pipes Old, Used, Rusted and unserviceable , whereas on examination by the Customs, it was found that though the goods are old and used it is serviceable. Held that - there is no different goods found as compared to the goods found declared in the bill of entry. Only because of the opinion of the examiner that the goods are serviceable, though it is old and used it cannot be said that there is misdeclaration - It is also fact that in the supplier s document also whatever description was mentioned, the appellants have declared the same on the bill of entry. Therefore, there is no misdeclaration on the part of the appellants. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods; Applicability of Customs Act on goods supplied from Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Analysis:
1. Misdeclaration of Goods: The case involved the confiscation of goods, imposition of a redemption fine, and a penalty due to alleged misdeclaration. The appellants declared the goods as "MS retrieved Pipes Old, Used, Rusted and unserviceable" based on the supplier's description. However, upon examination, Customs found the goods to be serviceable despite being old and used. The appellants argued that there was no misdeclaration as they accurately represented the goods based on the supplier's information. The tribunal agreed, stating that the goods declared in the bill of entry matched those examined, and the examiner's opinion of serviceability did not constitute misdeclaration. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty.

2. Applicability of Customs Act on EEZ Supplies: The appellants contended that the goods, supplied from the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), should not be treated as imports under Circular No. 22/2002, dated 23-4-2002, thus exempting them from the Customs Act. They relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support their argument. However, the tribunal did not delve into this issue as it found no misdeclaration regarding the goods. Therefore, the tribunal did not address the question of whether the Customs Act applied to goods supplied from the EEZ. The decision was solely based on the absence of misdeclaration, leading to the setting aside of the penalties and confiscation.