Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1793 - AT - CustomsImposition of Penalty u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - misdeclaration of imported goods - Aluminium Scrap - it was alleged that the goods contains contains Old Used Tyres - Held that - In this case, it is a fact on record that respondent has purchased the impugned goods on high seas sale basis from M/s. Sage Global, New Delhi. As per the Packing List, Pre-Inspection Report, Bill of Lading, Invoice, Bill of Entry & Description of Goods are shown as Aluminium Scrap . In that circumstance, it cannot be alleged against the respondent that he had deliberately misdeclared the goods. In the absence of any evidence on record by the Revenue that the respondent was having any knowledge of the goods contains in the container was Old Used Tyres , no penalty can be imposed on the respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Misdeclaration of goods leading to penalty imposition under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the dropping of a penalty imposed on the respondent by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for misdeclaration of goods. The respondent had imported a consignment labeled as "Aluminium Scrap" on high seas sale basis, which was later found to contain "Old Used Tyres." The penalty of ?50,00,000/- was imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Ld. AR for Revenue argued that misdeclaration occurred, justifying the penalty, while the Ld. Counsel for the respondent contended that the goods were declared based on documents provided by the seller, M/s. Sage Global, and the respondent had no knowledge of the actual contents of the container. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had indeed purchased the goods as "Aluminium Scrap" from M/s. Sage Global, with all relevant documents indicating the same description. It was deemed implausible to accuse the respondent of deliberate misdeclaration, especially when the actual contents were not easily discernible from the provided documents. The absence of evidence showing the respondent's knowledge of the misdeclaration led to the conclusion that no penalty could be imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order dropping the penalty, citing the lack of evidence linking the respondent to the misdeclaration of goods. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent.
|