2021 (11) TMI 667 - AT - Customs

Rejection of the request for amendment in the bills of lading - Existence of two bills of lading, differing in description of goods and in notify party - HELD THAT - Proceedings for wrong declarations in the manifest are initiated against the person-in-charge of conveyance, or the authorized agent, even before an importer or importers may seek acknowledgement of status by filing bill of entry mandated by section 46 of Customs Act, 1962. In such proceedings, the importer faces no detriment. A careful perusal of the decision of the Tribunal in M/S VALLABH WOOL INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) , NHAVA SHEVA 2019 (12) TMI 19 - CESTAT MUMBAI would elicit this distinguishment but for which that bench of the Tribunal would have lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal. It was the lack of evidence of any linkage of the purported importer with the findings of the original authority that were detrimental to the agent of the person-in-charge of the conveyance that led to setting aside the penalty. At the stage of custodianship before an importer, upon conclusion of assessment and clearance thereof, is the recipient of the imported goods, it is the person-in-charge of conveyance, or the agent, who is responsible for the imported goods. Consequently any finding qua the import manifest, including confiscation under section 111(f) of Customs Act, 1962, can be cause of grievance to the person-incharge of conveyance, or agent, and none other. Whatsoever may be the claim of the appellant herein to the impugned goods, that lies entirely within the commercial engagement of theirs with the shipper and the person-in-charge of the conveyance without intruding upon the statutory relationship of the person-in-charge of the conveyance, or the agent, and the customs authorities - The appellant cannot claim a relief that has the consequence of erasing the liability of M/s Oasis Shipping Pvt Ltd which, by failure to challenge the order of the original authority or by overcoming the confiscation under section 111(f) of Customs Act, 1962 upon compliance with the terms of redemption set out therein, has attained finality. The confiscation of the impugned goods having been, thus, accepted, section 126 of Customs Act, 1962 vests such goods with the Central Government. Therefore, notwithstanding any commercial engagement of the appellant herein with any other person in relation to the goods, this ownership by the Central Government cannot be alienated. Consequently, the claim of the appellant herein for acknowledgement of its claim to be entitled to file bill of entry for clearance thereafter by making alterations in the particular line of the import general manifest cannot be entertained. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of description in Import General Manifest
2. Confiscation of goods under section 111(f) of Customs Act, 1962
3. Jurisdiction of the appellate authority
4. Locus standii of the appellant for seeking changes in the import general manifest
5. Application of sections 111(f) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962
6. Ownership of confiscated goods under section 126 of Customs Act, 1962

Analysis:

Issue 1: Amendment of description in Import General Manifest
The appeal originated due to discrepancies in two bills of lading filed by M/s Oasis Shipping Pvt Ltd. An application was made to amend the description of goods in the Import General Manifest. The original 'notify party' and the shipping company were issued a show cause notice for rejection of the amendment request, proposing confiscation of goods and penalties. The first appellate authority quashed the proceeding, directing consideration of the new 'notify party' representation.

Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under section 111(f) of Customs Act, 1962
The order confiscated the goods under section 111(f) of Customs Act, 1962, with a redemption option on payment of a fine. Penalties were imposed on relevant parties. The Commissioner of Customs upheld the confiscation and penalties, leading to the current appeal by M/s Diamond Mink Blankets Ltd.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the appellate authority
The appellate authority quashed the initial proceeding, citing jurisdictional issues due to a notice by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The representation of M/s Diamond Mink Blankets Ltd was directed to be considered in the pending proceedings.

Issue 4: Locus standii of the appellant for seeking changes in the import general manifest
The appellant sought to quash the confiscation and amend the Import General Manifest. The Tribunal analyzed the statutory responsibilities of importers, custodians, and conveyance agents in relation to declarations and liabilities under the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 5: Application of sections 111(f) and 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962
The Tribunal differentiated between sections 111(f) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the distinct triggers and consequences of breaches related to declarations in the manifest and conveyance responsibilities.

Issue 6: Ownership of confiscated goods under section 126 of Customs Act, 1962
The Tribunal clarified that the confiscation of goods accepted by the appellant vested ownership with the Central Government under section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's claim to amend the manifest for clearance was dismissed, considering the finality of the confiscation.

In conclusion, the appeal of M/s Diamond Mink Blankets Ltd was dismissed, emphasizing the statutory framework, responsibilities, and consequences under the Customs Act, 1962.