2009 (9) TMI 668 - HC - Customs

Whether the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the second respondent who violated the provision of Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 by misdeclaring the imported goods Held that - contention of the counsel for the petitioner that whether the imported goods is a dried garlic or a fresh garlic containing moisture over and above 60 per cent is a pure and simple question of fact and hence it would not come under the purview of reference under Section 130-A of the Customs Act. The other contention made by the learned counsel that the second respondent has misdeclared the goods and its value for clearance of the goods which is liable to auction under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act is also one specifically excluded from the scope and amplitude of Section 130-A of the Customs Act by stating that the order not being order relating to among other things to the determination of any question having relating to a rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment, applicant cannot maintain reference case under Section 130-A of the Customs Act, petitions are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding misdeclaration of imported goods.
2. Validity of setting aside redemption fine and penalty by the Tribunal.
3. Applicability of Section 130-A of the Customs Act for reference to the High Court.

Interpretation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding misdeclaration of imported goods:
The case involved a dispute where the importer declared goods as dried garlic but tests revealed them to be fresh garlic with high moisture content. The issue was whether misdeclaration of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act was correctly imposed. The Tribunal set aside the redemption fine and penalty, citing the production of a special license before clearance. However, it was argued that the misdeclaration warranted the fine and penalty. The Court held that the misdeclaration of goods, in this case, was significant, as the importer tried to circumvent import restrictions. The misdeclaration of goods as dried garlic when they were fresh garlic with high moisture content was deemed a violation, justifying the redemption fine and penalty.

Validity of setting aside redemption fine and penalty by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal's decision to set aside the redemption fine and penalty was challenged. The Tribunal held that the special license produced before clearance exempted the importer from fines and penalties. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that the misdeclaration of goods warranted the imposed penalties. The Court found the Tribunal's decision not in accordance with the law, as the misdeclaration was a crucial factor in determining the fines and penalties. Therefore, the Court upheld the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, overturning the Tribunal's decision.

Applicability of Section 130-A of the Customs Act for reference to the High Court:
The reference petition was filed under Section 130-A of the Customs Act, seeking a High Court direction regarding questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The petitioner contended that misdeclaration of goods and their value fell under this provision. However, the Court ruled that the misdeclaration issue was a question of fact, not covered by Section 130-A. Additionally, misdeclaration issues were excluded from the scope of this section. Consequently, the Court dismissed the reference petitions and related miscellaneous petitions, stating that misdeclaration issues did not fall within the purview of Section 130-A for reference to the High Court.