2011 (1) TMI 543 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation - Misdeclaration - in the bill of entry filed by the appellant, there was description given and it was basically the department s case that mesh size was very important and should have been declared - If mis-declaration was the intention, the appellants should have taken care to ensure either the drums did not contain or they contain the declared mesh size - There is no law or any practice which was pointed out to us to show that where invoice did not contain details, it should be compared with proforma invoice - For the purpose of discrepancies between bill of entry and the invoice, invoice which was issued covering the goods for transportation during the course of international trade was required - Held that we cannot find fault with Revenue for initiating the proceedings in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and conclusion has been reached on the basis of strict interpretation of law as regards declaration to be made on the bill of entry and on that basis appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt - Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Mis-declaration of goods' description and mesh size leading to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing various products, importing Sodium Saccharine with a mis-declared mesh size. The goods were seized, and an order was passed confiscating them, imposing a fine and penalty. The Commissioner found mis-declaration based on various grounds, including deliberate actions to hide the actual mesh size and misuse of the SEZ scheme for tax benefits.

The appellant argued that the bill of entry was filed in advance, goods moved under transit bond, and the local invoice should not dictate assessment. They also contended that the seizure lacked proper permission and tax benefits were independent of trading activities.

The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the records, emphasizing the importance of the mesh size declaration. They noted that the drums' labels contradicted the mis-declaration claim and questioned the reliance on the local invoice for assessment purposes. The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence of deliberate mis-declaration and highlighted the confusion due to discrepancies in various documents.

Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting the benefit of doubt regarding mis-declaration. They set aside the order for confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, citing lack of clarity and the appellant's entitlement to doubt benefit. The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's stance but emphasized the strict interpretation of the law in reaching its decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant while refraining from addressing the issue of samples cleared without duty payment. The judgment highlighted the complexities of the case, the importance of statutory requirements, and the need for clarity in documentation to avoid misinterpretations and mis-declarations.