1993 (4) TMI 146 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of import license for clearance of goods.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.
3. Jurisdiction of a party in filing an appeal.
4. Appeal against the setting aside of penalty.
5. Allegations of suppression of material facts and mala fide conduct.
6. Mis-declaration on the Bill of Entry and subsequent corrections.
7. Justification of penalties imposed on the respondents.

Analysis:

The case involved appeals against an order passed by the Collector of Customs regarding the import of SKF brand ball bearings by M/s. Industrial Components Agencies. The import license was valid until 30-11-1986, but the date of shipment was 2-12-1986. The goods were ordered for absolute confiscation with a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- per consignment. M/s. Skefco India Bearing, claiming to be agents, sought re-export of goods. However, they withdrew their appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal concerning them due to lack of findings in their favor. The Revenue's appeal against the penalty set aside by the Collector was based on allegations of suppression of material facts and mala fide conduct by the respondents.

The Revenue contended that the respondents were aware of the incorrect date of shipment but suppressed this information. They argued that the conduct of the respondents was not of voluntary disclosure, indicating mala fide intentions. However, the respondents had already received money from the bankers and were not interested in clearing the goods for home consumption. The Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate mis-declaration on the Bill of Entry based on the correspondence and actions of the respondents, indicating no mala fides or deliberate actions to mislead customs authorities.

The Tribunal noted that until 18-12-1986, the respondents were unaware of the discrepancy in the date of shipment. The correspondence with the bank, shippers, and customs authorities showed a lack of deliberate intent to provide incorrect information. The respondents had expressed interest in reshipment even before the show cause notice was issued, indicating their willingness to rectify any discrepancies. Based on these findings, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the penalties imposed on M/s. Industrial Components Agencies, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals related to the jurisdiction of a party in filing an appeal, upheld the decision to set aside the penalty imposed on M/s. Industrial Components Agencies, and found no evidence of deliberate mis-declaration or mala fide conduct on the part of the respondents.