2015 (6) TMI 948 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - import of memory cards - The goods were seized on the belief that they were smuggled into India and the quantity and value of the goods was mis-declared - Violation u/s 111 - Held that - The present goods are commercial in quantity therefore they have to be classified under the appropriate heading which appears to be heading 8523 in the present case. In this view of the matter, I fail to see how the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 are violated. The Counsel has shown a copy of the IEC Code which is issued on 3.6.2009 i.e. before the date of show cause notice which was issued on 10.12.2009. The IEC code is also authenticated by Superintendent Customs Ahmedabad. Revenue did not challenge the authenticity of this certificate. Neither have they done so at the time of hearing. It is also not shown that goods in commercial quantity cannot be imported by post parcel It is true that goods imported under an import license do not fall Chapter Heading 98.04. However, in this case the Counsel has rightly taken the stand that they are not importing goods under a license nor have they imported goods for personal use. Therefore, the goods not being covered under Chapter Heading 98.04, there is no violation on their part. Therefore there appears to be no contravention of any law and violation of Section 111(d). As regards the alleged violation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, I find that the Commissioner in his order has clearly stated that the show cause notice has not brought out any discrepancy in the declared quantity of the goods. - Neither from the records it is evident that there was any misdeclaration of value or in respect of any other entry made under the Customs Act. As the Ld. Advocate has pointed out, in terms of Section 82 of the Customs Act, which applies to import by post, the label or declaration accompanying the goods shall be deemed to be an entry for import or export. In the present case no discrepancy has been pointed out in the labels accompanying the goods. Therefore there is no violation of Section 111(m). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Violation of provisions regarding import of goods through post parcels.
3. Allegations of mis-declaration of quantity and value of goods.
4. Validity of penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

Confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m):
The case involved the interception of post parcels from Hong Kong containing memory cards valued at Rs. 1,17,60,480. The Commissioner confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act and imposed penalties on the individuals involved. The appellant challenged the confiscation, arguing that there was no violation of these sections as the goods were not prohibited, had a valid IEC Code, and were not mis-declared. The Tribunal agreed, finding that the goods were not prohibited, had a valid IEC Code, and were not mis-declared, leading to the confiscation being set aside.

Violation of import provisions for post parcels:
The appellant contended that the goods were imported following proper procedures for post parcels and should not have been intercepted in Mumbai. They argued that subsequent letters claimed ownership of the goods, which were ignored by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted that the goods were not intended for personal use but for trading, and thus should be classified differently. The appellant's compliance with import regulations and lack of misdeclaration were highlighted, leading to the confiscation being deemed unjustified.

Mis-declaration allegations and penalties:
The appellant also disputed the mis-declaration allegations and penalties imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that there was no misdeclaration of quantity or value based on the records and declarations accompanying the goods. The penalties were set aside along with the confiscation of goods as there was no violation of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring proper documentation in import transactions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order of confiscation and penalties, emphasizing the lack of violation of Customs Act provisions and the proper compliance with import regulations by the appellant. The judgment highlighted the significance of accurate declarations and adherence to legal requirements in import transactions to avoid unjust confiscation and penalties.