2010 (12) TMI 498 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and penalty - The alleged misdeclaration was not due to the any omission or commission on the part of the appellant, and apparently it was a mistake on the part of third party namely, pre-shipment inspection agency - It is also noticed that mis-declaration, did not result in any evasion or violation of licensing regulation - Thus, the explanation offered by the Inspection Agency appears acceptable - Held that there is no justification for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the appellants - The appeal is allowed in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Variation of terms of Stay Order
2. Mis-declaration in pre-shipment inspection certificate
3. Confiscation of goods and penalties

Analysis:

1. Variation of terms of Stay Order: The judgment pertains to a Misc. application seeking a change in the terms of a Stay Order which required a bank guarantee of Rs. One lakh to be held by the revenue until the appeal's disposal. With mutual agreement, the application was disposed of, and the appeal was taken up for final hearing.

2. Mis-declaration in pre-shipment inspection certificate: The case involved the import of heavy melting scrap described as ball scrap and plate scrap, certified by an international inspection company. The inspection agency later clarified an oversight in the certificate, leading to misdeclaration. While no licensing restrictions were violated, the original authority ordered confiscation of goods, later reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Confiscation of goods and penalties: The judgment noted that the misdeclaration was not the appellant's fault but a mistake by the inspection agency, not resulting in evasion or licensing violations. Consequently, the confiscation of goods and penalties imposed were deemed unjustified. The appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellant as per the law.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on rectifying an inadvertent misdeclaration issue by a third party, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the disposal of the Misc. application. The decision emphasized the absence of intentional wrongdoing by the appellant and the lack of duty implications or licensing violations, resulting in the reversal of the original confiscation order and penalties.