1994 (6) TMI 54 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Bench, Mis-declaration of goods, Transhipment permit validity, Violation of Customs Act and ITC, Confiscation of goods, Penalty under Section 112, Correctness of valuation.

Jurisdiction of the Bench:
The appeal raised a question about the jurisdiction of the Bench due to discrepancies in the Memorandum of Appeal regarding the valuation of goods. The appellant clarified that while they were aggrieved by the valuation issue, they did not intend to press it. The appellant also raised a preliminary point regarding the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, arguing that the goods were in transit to Delhi and should have been cleared by Delhi Customs, not Bombay.

Mis-declaration of Goods:
The appellant contended that the goods were detained at Bombay despite being in transit to Delhi, and the Collector of Customs, Bombay had no jurisdiction to confiscate the goods. The appellant argued that the goods were described as shoddy wool but were found to contain synthetic waste, leading to allegations of mis-declaration. The appellant claimed they were not responsible for any mis-declaration as they expected only shoddy wool based on the order and documents exchanged with the supplier.

Transhipment Permit Validity:
The appellant submitted that the transhipment permit was filed based on the order indent acceptance, expecting shoddy wool in the consignment. They argued that any mistaken supply of synthetic waste by the supplier should not be attributed to them, as they acted in good faith and declared the goods correctly in the transhipment permit.

Violation of Customs Act and ITC:
The Department alleged mis-declaration of description and value, violating the Customs Act and Import Trade Control Act. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, asserted jurisdiction over the goods imported from abroad, even if the ultimate destination was Delhi. The mis-declaration was supported by a test report showing the presence of synthetic waste in the consignment.

Confiscation of Goods and Penalty under Section 112:
The Department argued that the mis-declaration warranted confiscation of goods under Section 111 and imposition of penalties under Section 112. The misdeclaration encompassed description, quantity, and value, constituting a substantial violation of the Customs Act and ITC. The Show Cause Notice was deemed valid despite minor technical errors, and the appellant was held liable for penalties.

Correctness of Valuation:
The appellant contested the valuation of goods by the Department, claiming the actual value was lower than assessed. They argued that the correct value should be considered to determine mis-declaration and corresponding penalties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, rejecting the appeal. The decision was based on the established mis-declaration, violation of Customs Act and ITC, and the liability of the appellant for penalties. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Collector's decision in light of the circumstances presented during the proceedings.