2016 (6) TMI 1101 - AT - Customs

Discrepancy in furnishing of IGM (import manifest or import report) - Goods (transit cargo) were not mentioned in IGM - confiscation of goods and levy of redemption fine - levy of penalty - Held that - The facts presented by the case do not reveal any fraudulent intention. Further there is no such finding made in the impugned order. The confiscation is on the ground of failure to declare the Lube oil against the Same Bottom Cargo in the Form / IGM. As per sub-clause (3) of Section 30, the officer ought to have given an opportunity to the appellants to amend or supplement the IGM as all other documents are in order. As there is no fraudulent intention, the confiscation is illegal - redemption fine and penalty waived. - Decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to declare cargo in Import General Manifest (IGM) under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Confiscation of undeclared goods and imposition of penalties.
3. Consideration of fraudulent intention and opportunity for amendment of IGM.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Failure to declare cargo in Import General Manifest (IGM) under Customs Act, 1962
The case involved the appellant, Master of vessel MT Stolt Hill, failing to declare 1499.669 MT of Ultra-S8 branded Lube oil and 999.610 MT of Ultra-S4 branded lube oil in the IGM filed by the Steamer Agents. The Customs department seized the undeclared cargo under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, for contravention of Section 30. The Principal Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods and imposed penalties, leading to the appeal by the appellants.

Issue 2: Confiscation of undeclared goods and imposition of penalties
The appellant argued that the failure to declare the cargo in the IGM was an inadvertent omission and not willful. The counsel contended that there was no fraudulent intention, and the law allows for amendment or supplementation of the IGM in case of bona fide mistakes. The appellant's submission highlighted that all other arrival documents correctly mentioned the transit cargo, indicating a genuine oversight in the IGM filing process.

Issue 3: Consideration of fraudulent intention and opportunity for amendment of IGM
Upon reviewing the facts and evidence presented, the Tribunal noted the absence of fraudulent intent in the appellant's actions. Referring to Section 30 of the Customs Act, which permits amending or supplementing the IGM in case of errors without fraudulent intention, the Tribunal found that the confiscation was unjustified. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that in similar situations where there was no fraudulent intention, the request for amendment of IGM was granted, leading to the goods being released.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal held that due to the lack of fraudulent intention, the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties were deemed illegal. Consequently, the order of confiscation and penalties imposed were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs.