2008 (10) TMI 223 - AT - Customs

Import misdeclaration confiscation import through post parcel Held that - that the provisions of Section 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 will not apply to the goods which arrived through post parcel - ownership of the consignment was claimed by exporter - no findings or any evidence to indicate that there was any understanding between the consignor and consignee, in the mis-declaration of post parcel ownership of mis-declaration order rejecting the ownership set aside entire order including confiscation and penalty also set aside

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Absolute confiscation of imported goods.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Rejection of ownership claim of the imported goods.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Absolute Confiscation of Imported Goods
The adjudicating authority ordered the absolute confiscation of the imported goods, Cubic Zirconia, valued at Rs. 65,41,740/- (CIF) and Rs. 78,50,088/- (LMV) under Section 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. This decision was based on the mis-declaration of the goods as "fashion material" without declaring their value. The Tribunal, however, found that the provisions of Section 111(l) and 111(m) could not be invoked for goods arriving via post parcel, as established in the precedent case of CC, Mumbai v. M. Vasi. The Tribunal concluded that the goods, which arrived through post parcel, were not liable for confiscation under these sections, and thus, the order of absolute confiscation was set aside.

2. Imposition of Penalty Under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962
The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Mr. P. Kumar under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Mr. P. Kumar contested this, arguing that he was not the importer and had not made any declaration regarding the goods. The Tribunal noted that Section 112(a) applies to acts or omissions rendering goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. Given that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(l) and 111(m) due to their arrival by post parcel, the penalty imposed on Mr. P. Kumar was deemed unwarranted and was set aside.

3. Rejection of Ownership Claim of the Imported Goods
The adjudicating authority rejected the ownership claim of Mr. Pichai Rakchu, the consignor, a Thailand national. The Tribunal found that there were no provisions in the Customs Act to reject the ownership claim of a consignor. The Tribunal noted that the exporter had written to the customs authorities explaining the mistake and requesting the return of the goods. The Tribunal concluded that the ownership claim by the consignor could not be rejected and set aside the adjudicating authority's order on this ground. The appellant in appeal No. E/378/03 was allowed to approach the customs authorities to claim the impugned goods.

Conclusion
The Tribunal set aside the entire impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(l) and 111(m), the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) was unwarranted, and the ownership claim by the consignor was valid. The appellants were granted relief accordingly.