2010 (8) TMI 299 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - mis-declaration of goods in the Bill of Entry - only tin plates waste/waste/tin plate mis-prints have been specified in this regard under the Import Policy - specified goods do not cover tin plate - appellants cannot be held to have violated the condition relating to import at specified ports - they were not the original importers and we take note of the fact that they have only come forward to clear the goods already imported - charge of violation of Section 111 (d) cannot be made against the appellants Confiscation - import not at designated ports - appellants had initially declared the lower value and have subsequently agree to pay duty on the higher value determined by the Custom authorities - charge made against them under Section 111(m) for confiscation of the impugned goods and for imposition of penalty under Section 112 is sustainable redemption in fine and the penalty - appeal is partly allowed

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods quality, Violation of DGFT notification, Mis-declaration of value

Mis-declaration of goods quality:
The appellant's representative argued that the impugned goods were correctly declared as tin plates second in the Bill of Entry, and no mis-declaration was found by the Customs authorities. It was highlighted that the original importers did not come forward to clear the goods, and the appellants only did so after being allowed by customs. The tribunal agreed that the charge of mis-declaration regarding the quality of goods could not be held against the present importers, as they acted in good faith by coming forward to clear the consignments when the original importers did not do so.

Violation of DGFT notification:
The tribunal noted that the appellants were accused of violating the DGFT notification, which mandates that seconds and defective goods must be imported at designated ports. However, it was found that the specified goods under the Import Policy did not cover tin plate seconds. Since the appellants were not the original importers and only cleared the goods after the original importers did not, the charge of violating the condition relating to import at specified ports was not applicable to them. Therefore, the charge of violation of Section 111(d) could not be made against the appellants.

Mis-declaration of value:
While the tribunal acknowledged that the appellants initially declared a lower value for the impugned goods, they later agreed to pay duty on the higher value determined by the Customs authorities. Consequently, the charge under Section 111(m) for confiscation of the goods and imposition of a penalty was deemed sustainable. Taking into account all circumstances, including the fact that the appellants were not the original importers, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellants. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1.00 lakh, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000. Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed based on the above considerations.