1991 (8) TMI 192 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are mis-declaration of goods, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, re-export permission, and imposition of redemption fine.

Mis-declaration of Goods:
The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for electronics components, but upon physical examination, mounted PCBs were found instead of individual components. The Additional Collector ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) for mis-declaration. The Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh order considering new evidence.

Confiscation and Re-export Permission:
After remand, the Collector again ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. The Collector did not grant re-export permission, stating it was not mandatory under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The appellants challenged this decision.

Legal Arguments:
The appellants argued they did not contravene Section 111(d) as they were not connected to the wrong goods dispatched by the supplier. They contended that the Collector erred in denying re-export permission despite evidence of the supplier's mistake. The Collector's findings supported the appellants' claim of no intention to violate the law.

Redemption Fine and Precedents:
The revenue argued that goods not corresponding to the Bill of Entry are liable for confiscation, justifying the redemption fine. They cited precedents where knowledge was not essential for imposing redemption fines. The appellants distinguished these cases based on the specific facts of this case.

Judgment:
After considering arguments and evidence, the Tribunal found that the appellants acted in good faith, with no intention to violate customs laws. The mistake was attributed to the exporter, not the appellants. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation order and redemption fine, allowing the re-export of the goods as requested.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the importance of considering each case's unique circumstances in customs matters and highlighting the need to differentiate between genuine mistakes and intentional violations of the law.