2015 (3) TMI 24 - AT - Customs

Amendment to the IGM - Confiscation u/s 111(f) and 111(g) - Held that - Amendment to the IGM was necessitated because one of the importers after filing the bills of entry chose not to clear the goods; therefore, the goods were required to be sold to new consignees and consequently, fresh bills of lading and invoices were required to be issued. It is in these circumstances, the appellant sought amendment to the IGM. There was no fraudulent intention on the part of the appellant to evade or avoid any Customs duty liability. As regards the invoices issued for the supply of goods are concerned that is the responsibility of the foreign supplier and the shipping line has nothing to do with it. As regards the issue of fresh bills of lading, it is true that new numbers and dates should have been given for the fresh bills of lading. However, this is only technical error and does not reflect any fraudulent intention. In any case section 111(f) deals with a situation where there is a deliberate misdeclaration in the import manifest filed which is not the case herein. Therefore, the provisions of the said section has no application whatsoever in the facts of the present case. Similarly, the goods were not sought to be unloaded in contravention in the IGM. Therefore, the provisions of Section 111(g) are also not attracted. Since there was no fraudulent intention whatsoever and the applicant/appellant had made application for amendment to the IGM mentioning about the facts in its entirety, the said application for amendment should have been allowed by the proper officer in terms of the powers conferred on him. There was no warrant to hold the good liable to confiscation and impose any penalty. In these circumstances, I find that the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, I set aside the same - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods under Customs Act Sections 111(f) and 111(g) due to amendment in Import General Manifest (IGM).

Analysis:
1. Background: The case involves an appeal against the imposition of penalties and confiscation of goods under Sections 111(f) and 111(g) of the Customs Act due to an amendment in the Import General Manifest (IGM) filed by a shipping agent.

2. Facts of the Case: The appellant, a shipping agent, filed an IGM for import consignments, but one importer decided not to clear the goods, leading to the need for amending the IGM to find new buyers. The amendment was requested for genuine commercial reasons, and the appellant followed the procedure under Section 149 of the Customs Act for amending the IGM.

3. Legal Arguments: The appellant argued that the amendment was necessitated for legitimate commercial purposes, and there was no violation of Sections 111(f) and 111(g) as the original IGM was correct at the time of filing. Referring to a Board Circular and past tribunal decisions, the appellant contended that penalties should not be imposed when the IGM is complete and correct at the time of filing.

4. Revenue's Position: The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue maintained that issuing fresh bills of lading and invoices with the same numbers and dates as the old ones constituted a violation, justifying penalties and confiscation of goods.

5. Judgment: The Tribunal, after considering both sides' arguments, concluded that the amendment to the IGM was necessitated by a genuine commercial need, with no fraudulent intent to evade customs duties. The technical errors in issuing fresh bills of lading did not indicate any fraudulent intention. The Tribunal found that Sections 111(f) and 111(g) were not applicable in this case as there was no deliberate misdeclaration or contravention. Therefore, the penalties and confiscation of goods were unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law.

This judgment clarifies the application of Sections 111(f) and 111(g) of the Customs Act concerning amendments to the IGM and emphasizes the importance of genuine commercial reasons for such amendments, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant in this case.