2018 (6) TMI 344 - AT - Customs

Reimport after repairs of pumps - it was alleged that three out of nine pumps were found to be not conforming with the serial numbers declared at the time of export - Held that - The justification afforded on behalf of the appellant that the error was inadvertent has not been given due consideration by the lower authorities. Nothing has been placed on record to controvert the claim that the shipment had been effected by mistake and that the offer of re-export was not genuine - In the absence of such evidence, the finding that the provisions of section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 is invokable is not tenable in law. Likewise, the invoking of section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Declaration of serial numbers of re-imported goods
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962
3. Justification for inadvertent shipment and offer of re-export

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the declaration of serial numbers of three out of nine pumps reimported after repairs, which did not conform with the declared serial numbers at the time of export. The appellant sought to avail the benefit of concession available to re-imported goods, but the discrepancy led to the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The original authority imposed a redemption fine and penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, which were later reduced in the impugned order. The appellant contended that the inadvertent shipment of the pumps was supported by a confirmation letter and that the shipper was willing to accept the goods if returned. Citing precedents, the appellant argued for a lenient approach based on genuine mistakes in similar cases.

3. The Tribunal considered the appellant's explanation that the error was inadvertent and the offer of re-export was genuine. Relying on previous decisions where genuine mistakes led to re-export without penalties, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the inadvertent nature of the error. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the established bona fides and lack of evidence to support penal consequences.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the inadvertent nature of the error in declaring serial numbers, the genuine intent of the appellant for re-export, and the lack of evidence supporting penal consequences under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering genuine mistakes in customs declarations and the precedents allowing re-export without redemption fines or penalties in such cases.