9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of consignment containing components for High Pressure Homogenizer. 2. Allegations of mis-declaration and use of a forged document. 3. Application of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. 4. Non-disclosure of relationship with foreign suppliers. 5. Provisional assessment and valuation issues. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged an order confiscating a consignment valued at Rs. 8,49,518/- c.i.f., with a redemption fine of Rs. 4,25,000/- imposed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay. The allegations included the use of a forged document, mis-declaration regarding an item, and non-disclosure of collaboration with a foreign supplier. 2. The appellants argued that there was no mala fide intent in producing the forged document, as the pencil entry was made to facilitate inclusion by DGTD. The original certificate was later produced, and the penal action was dropped. They contended that the confiscation under Section 111(m) was unwarranted due to the genuine mistake regarding the disputed item. 3. The Respondent contended that the appellants should have disclosed their relationship with foreign suppliers, invoking Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal found that the inclusion of the disputed item in the DGTD certificate absolved it from confiscation under Section 111(m). 4. Regarding the non-disclosure of the relationship with foreign suppliers, the Tribunal noted that the imports were subject to special valuation branch circular, making the assessment provisional. The failure to mention this relationship was not deliberate, especially considering the subsequent withdrawal of the loading on the invoice value. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal remitted the redemption fine, cautioning the appellants to declare all relevant aspects in their future declarations. The decision considered the genuine mistake in producing the forged document and the provisional nature of the assessment, providing relief to the appellants based on the circumstances of the case.
|
