2010 (9) TMI 264 - AT - Customs

Penalty - import general manifest for import of goods in containers - appellant requested for amendment in the IGM - By this time the imported cargo had been unloaded - According to the Revenue this resulted in violation of Section 32 of Customs Act, 1962 which requires that goods should be included in the IGM before they are unloaded - penalty imposed - Held that - in the absence of a finding of fraudulent intention and the need for adjudication of the application for amendment, the action of the lower authorities in proceeding to confiscate the goods, impose fine and penalty was not warranted. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant

Summary

Issues: Violation of Section 32 of Customs Act, 1962

In this case, the appellant, engaged in providing shipping agent services, filed a prior import general manifest and a final IGM for import of goods at Mundra Port. Subsequently, they requested an amendment in the IGM after the goods had already been unloaded, leading to a violation of Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue contended that the goods should have been included in the IGM before unloading. After adjudication and appellate proceedings, the imported goods were confiscated, a redemption fine of Rs.1 lakh was imposed for goods valued at around Rs.20 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs.15,000 was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appellant argued that the decision of the Tribunal in a previous case supported their contention that without a decision on the application for amendment of the IGM, it cannot be concluded that the goods were not manifested. The Tribunal had emphasized that amendments or supplements to a manifest should be permitted if there is no fraudulent intention, aiming to prevent smuggling discovered post-amendment application. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged negligence but found no deliberate or malafide intention on the part of the appellant. The appellant also referenced a circular by the Board stating that amendments to the IGM should be allowed without fraudulent intention, and adjudication should only occur in cases of fraudulent intention or significant revenue implications. As there was no finding of fraudulent intention and no consideration of the amendment application, the lower authorities' actions to confiscate goods and impose fines and penalties were deemed unwarranted. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with relief to the appellant.