2013 (8) TMI 779 - AT - Customs

Mis declaration of Goods confiscation of goods u/s 111(m) custom duty penalty u/s 112(a) - Department was of the view that the the silver jewellery which was imported was having Americcan standard high priced stone and not low cost stones they issued notice for Confiscation of goods u/s 111(m) and custom duty was imposed penalty u/s 112(a) were imposed Held that - following the judgment of Commissioner of Customs vs. M. Vasi (2002 (11) TMI 135 - CEGAT, MUMBAI) held that, goods arrived by post parcel will not liable for confiscation u/s 111(l) and 111(m) - the penalty imposed u/s 112(a) on the assessee was also unwarranted order set aside decided partly against revenue

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods' value.
2. Confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act.
4. Interpretation of Sections 82 and 84 of the Customs Act for goods imported through post parcel.

Analysis:

1. The appellant imported silver jewelry but mis-declared its value, leading to discrepancies found during examination by Customs officers. The appellant admitted to the mis-declaration, citing a communication gap with the supplier. The Adjudicating Authority upheld the confiscation of goods and imposed penalties based on the mis-declaration.

2. The issue of confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act was raised. The appellant argued that Section 82 of the Act governs goods imported through post parcel and that the declaration accompanying the goods should be deemed as an entry for import. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal found that confiscation under Section 111(m) does not apply to goods imported via post parcel, as the responsibility of declaration lies with the exporter abroad.

3. The penalty under Section 112(a) was imposed on the appellant by the lower authorities. However, the Tribunal, considering the legal provisions and precedents, concluded that since the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(m), the penalty imposed on the appellant was unwarranted and set it aside.

4. The Tribunal extensively analyzed the interpretation of Sections 82 and 84 of the Customs Act concerning goods imported through post parcel. It emphasized that the responsibility of declaration for goods arriving via post parcel lies with the exporter abroad, and the importer cannot be held accountable for any discrepancies in the declaration. Legal precedents and judicial interpretations were cited to support the conclusion that confiscation and penalties under Sections 111(m) and 112(a) do not apply to goods imported through post parcel, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.