2017 (3) TMI 157 - AT - Customs

Contravention of section 30 and 32 of Customs Act, 1962 - incorrect import manifest - confiscation - Held that - There is no doubt that goods have been unloaded, whether inadvertently or otherwise, but there is no allegation that these were not inventorised in the records of the duly appointed custodian. In the absence of any such evidence, invoking of section 111(g) for confiscation is not in accordance with law. The goods were intended for unloading at Mumbai port. The purpose of section 30 and section 32 is to ensure that only such goods as are, and can be, cleared from that port on payment of duty shall alone be unloaded - The impugned consignment is not alleged to have been intended for any other port - goods have been unloaded, whether inadvertently or otherwise, but there is no allegation that these were not inventorised in the records of the duly appointed custodian. In the absence of any such evidence, invoking of section 111(g) for confiscation is not in accordance with law - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against dropping proceedings for contravention of Customs Act, 1962 sections 30 and 32.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Alleged Lapse and Agent's Responsibility:
The Commissioner held that the alleged lapse could not be attributed to the respondent, who was an agent, as the error was committed by the shipper. The respondent, a shipping agent, sought amendments in the Import General Manifests, which were filed incorrectly by the shipper, leading to the proceedings against the respondent being dropped.

2. Circular Instructions and Imposition of Penalty:
The circular by CBEC instructed field formations to allow amendments in manifests only upon permission by the proper officer, with penalties for major amendments. However, the Tribunal noted that the circular cannot mandate the imposition of penalties, as invoking sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act is a quasi-judicial power. The Tribunal highlighted the need for tolerance for genuine mistakes and criticized the directive's impact on the discretion of senior Customs functionaries.

3. Confiscation and Penalties under Customs Act:
The Tribunal pointed out a disconnect between the alleged contraventions justifying confiscation under sections 111(f) and (g) and penalties under section 112. It emphasized that goods inadvertently unloaded but included in records are not liable for confiscation under section 111(g), and the inclusion of goods in the manifest is not disputed, which does not contravene section 30.

4. Unloading of Goods and Manifest Filing:
The Customs Act focuses on the clearance of goods, and the identity of the importer is relevant upon filing the bill of entry for clearance. The Tribunal clarified that the manifest was filed in accordance with section 30, and any errors in the consignee's name do not justify confiscation under sections 111(e) and (g).

5. Compliance with Sections 30 and 32:
The Act aims to ensure that only goods intended for a specific port are unloaded there, as per sections 30 and 32. The Tribunal emphasized that the impugned consignment was intended for unloading at Mumbai port, complying with the Act's provisions.

6. Dismissal of Revenue's Appeals:
The Tribunal concluded that the appeals of Revenue failed to be sustained by law and were dismissed, along with disposing of the case. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory provisions over administrative instructions and the need for equitable application of penalties and confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

← Previous Next →