2015 (2) TMI 419 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of value as well as quantity of import goods - huge difference - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of penalty - Held that - Commissioner (appeal) after going through the facts of the case has clearly discussed out in last two paras of his Order and held that since under section 46 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 importer was required to file invoice in support of the declaration and such document being mandatorily available to the assessing officer, no misdeclaration could be imputed as there was no finding on record that appellant did not file the invoice to the assessing officer or that invoice contained misdeclaration relating to quantity as well as well value. - No intent to defraud the Revenue is forthcoming. There is a mistake in describing the quantity on the part of the staff handling file of Bill of Entry which was accompanied by the documents indicating the correct quantity and value of the consignment. As such no case for import of excess and consequent demand of differential duty on account of malafide is made. In this regard, I agree with the finding of the Commissioner (appeal). - Commissioner agreed with the submissions that the clerk of the appellants CHA made the mistake and wrongly interpreted the quantity involved invoices 33.38 square meter instead of quantity of 33,378 square meter due to misunderstanding of the connotation. Commissioner (appeal)s findings and my findings regarding imposition of penalty, I uphold the order of Commissioner (appeal) as far as it relates to demand of duty and imposition of penalty. However, order is modified to the extent that penalty of ₹ 10,000/- is imposed on them for wrong declaration in bill of entry. - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against Order-in-appeal dropping proceedings for mis-declaration of value and quantity, imposition of penalty, and confiscation.

Analysis:
The Department appealed against the Order-in-appeal by the Commissioner, which dropped proceedings against the respondents for mis-declaration of value and quantity, leading to the imposition of penalty and confiscation being dropped. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner failed to consider that the importer had access to goods details before arrival, and discrepancies in quantity should have been detected earlier. The Department argued that despite having the invoice and packing list, the wrong declaration was not identified during the filing of the Bill of Entry. The Department emphasized the responsibility of importers under section 46(4) of the Customs Act to provide accurate declarations. The Department provided the Bill of Entry, invoice, and packing list as evidence.

The respondents' counsel explained that the error in quantity description was due to the CHA staff's mistake, who misinterpreted the quantity as 33.38 square meters instead of 33,376 square meters. The counsel highlighted that all correct information was included in the invoice and packing list submitted to the Customs Department before the goods' examination. The respondents, being regular importers, had a history of importing products and paying substantial duties. The Commissioner (appeal) acknowledged the lack of fraudulent intent to defraud the Revenue based on the facts presented.

After reviewing the documents and submissions, the Tribunal found that the misdeclaration was due to a mistake by the CHA staff, not an intent to defraud. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (appeal) that no malafide intention was present. While acknowledging the responsibility of importers under section 46(4) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal decided to impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000 for the wrong declaration in the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (appeal)'s decision regarding the demand of duty and penalty imposition, partially allowing the Department's appeal while providing consequential relief to the respondent in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (appeal)'s decision to drop the proceedings against the respondents for mis-declaration of value and quantity, while imposing a penalty for the wrong declaration in the Bill of Entry. The judgment considered the responsibilities of importers under the Customs Act, the lack of fraudulent intent, and the need for accuracy in declarations during import processes.