9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 202 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of unmanifested goods and imposition of penalty - The submission of the appellants is that they had applied for amendment of the IGM as per Section 30 of the Customs Act and there is no finding that there was any fraudulent intention on their part and, therefore, amendment should have been permitted so as to include the unmanifested goods and confiscation and penalty should not have been ordered/imposed contention is not acceptable confiscation and penalty upheld.
Issues: Failure to include goods in the manifest, confiscation of unmanifested goods, penalty imposition, application for amendment of IGM, fraudulent intention, liability of steamer agents.
In this case, the appellants, steamer agents, failed to include goods covered by a bill of lading in the manifest for a vessel. The Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the unmanifested goods valued at about Rs.19.69 lakhs under Section 111(f) and (g) with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Section 112(a). The appellants argued that they applied for an amendment of the IGM under Section 30 of the Customs Act and that there was no fraudulent intention on their part. They cited Tribunal's orders in similar cases but the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in another case held that non-disclosure of entire goods in the import manifest results in liability of such goods to confiscation and the person in charge liable to penalty. The Court held that the steamer agents were responsible for the omission in filing the Import Manifest and thus liable to penalty, upholding the impugned order and rejecting the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of accurate manifest filing and the consequences of failing to include goods in the manifest. It clarifies the liability of steamer agents in such situations and emphasizes the need to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act. The case underscores the significance of transparency in import procedures and the legal repercussions of non-compliance, even in cases where an application for amendment of the manifest has been made. The decision sets a precedent based on the Bombay High Court's ruling, emphasizing the legal responsibilities of those involved in filing import manifests and the penalties for non-disclosure or omissions.
|
