2013 (11) TMI 855 - AT - Customs

Confiscation under Sec. 111(d) & 111(f) - Misdeclaration of goods - Declaration of palm oil as crude palm oil - benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - Whether a description of imported cargo given in the IGM will make those goods reliable to confiscation under Section 111(f) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - no evidence on record to show that any instructions were given by or on behalf of the appellants to the Shipping Corporation of India in respect of the declarations to be made in the import manifest. The Import Manifest (Aircraft) Regulations, 1976 provide that every import manifest shall cover all the goods carried in the Aircraft and consist of, inter alia, a cargo manifest in Form III - The description of goods is also given broadly, such as machinery, electronics, articles of goods etc. and precise description of goods contained in each consignment which may comprise a large number of packages does not appear to be a requirement. The Collector has not specified in his order as to what is the deficiency in the declarations made in the import manifests. We do not therefore, see any justification for confiscating the goods under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act. primary responsibility for declaration in the manifest is that of the owners or the agents of the vessel or the aircraft and if they are exonerated, it would not be appropriate to confiscate the goods under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act particularly when there is no evidence to show that the declarations in the manifest were made under the instructions of the appellants - there could be other categories of crude palm oil of edible grade, which do not have an acid value and bjta carotene value as specified in Notification No.21/2002-Cus, as mentioned. The only will be that such Crude Palm Oil of edible grade will not be eligible to get the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported cargo as 'Crude Palm Oil' in the IGM.
2. Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(f) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Provisional release of seized goods and imposition of penalties.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in the appeals was the mis-declaration of imported cargo as 'Crude Palm Oil' in the IGM. The appellant argued that there was no mis-declaration as they were not responsible for the filing of IGM and that the carotene value could have reduced from more than 500 to less than 500 due to a long gap between loading and sampling. Reference was made to a judgment stating that the value declared in the IGM was not considered mis-declaration for confiscation. The appellant also highlighted exemptions provided in relevant notifications for crude palm oil of edible grade.

2. Regarding the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(f) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal analyzed the provisions and held that incomplete description in the IGM should not lead to confiscation. It was emphasized that the primary responsibility for declaration in the manifest lies with the carriers, and if they are not at fault, confiscation is not justified. The Tribunal found no evidence of instructions from the appellants for mis-declaration, leading to the conclusion that confiscation was unwarranted.

3. The issue of provisional release of seized goods and imposition of penalties was also addressed. The Tribunal observed that if imported goods are not liable for confiscation, there is no basis for imposing penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the order regarding confiscation and penalties was set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed with consequential relief, if any. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and the responsibility of carriers in manifest declarations to avoid unjust confiscation and penalties.