9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Seizure of goods declared as 'Watch Modules' addressed to a non-existent firm, alleged misdeclaration, liability for confiscation under Customs Act, and penalty on partners, Stamp Vendor, Notary, and Advocate.
The Commissioner of Customs seized goods declared as 'Watch Modules' addressed to a non-existent firm, leading to investigations revealing discrepancies in ownership claims and partnership documents. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing increased valuation of goods and alleging confiscation under Customs Act Section 111(d), (f) & (m) along with penalty on involved parties. The Commissioner's Order determined the goods as freely importable, citing lack of legal provisions mandating possession of specific documents at the time of import. Referring to Customs Valuation Rules, the Commissioner declined confiscation or penalty, directing revaluation instead. Revenue filed appeals against this decision. The Revenue argued that goods imported by a non-existent firm were liable for confiscation due to misdeclaration, including discrepancies in goods description and declaration as 'samples'. However, the Respondents contended that the Show Cause Notice did not mention the non-existence of the recipient firm as misdeclaration. The Tribunal analyzed Customs Act sections regarding import declarations, distinguishing between different modes of importation and responsibilities of declarants. It noted that Section 82 for post parcels deems the exporter's declaration as entry, absolving the importer of declaration responsibility. The Tribunal found no deliberate misdeclaration in the case of 'watch modules' and upheld the Commissioner's decision. Regarding partnership validity and IEC Number acquisition post-import, the Tribunal emphasized the legality of oral partnerships and subsequent documentation, along with the permissibility of obtaining IEC Numbers after importation. It concluded that the partnership's backdating did not impact the import's legality, supporting the Commissioner's ruling on non-confiscation and no penalty imposition. The Tribunal dismissed claims of aiding and abetting by other parties, citing lack of evidence of conscious knowledge or benefit from any offense. Additionally, it addressed the grievance of goods disposal pre-adjudication, noting proper permissions obtained and advising concerned parties to pursue the matter with Customs authorities. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's decision.
|
