1997 (7) TMI 349 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether penalty can be imposed on specific individuals involved in the illegal import of goods.
2. Whether the declaration in the Bill of Entry was a mis-declaration and if it was intentional.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellants, actual users of bulk drugs, imported goods that were detained due to suspicions of mixup. The appellants requested re-export after discovering the error, but investigations were initiated only upon this request. The appellants argued that they were genuine users, promptly informed Customs about the mixup, and waived the Show Cause Notice. The Department found no incriminating evidence during investigations. The appellants also stated they would abandon the goods if re-export was not permitted. The appellants contended that no penalty should be imposed due to the mixup being unintentional. The ld. Counsel raised concerns about denial of natural justice, as charges were not explained, and penalties were imposed on specific individuals without proper opportunity for defense.

Issue 2:
The goods were detained based on specific information, and subsequent testing revealed misdeclaration of goods as Norfloxacin and Vitamin B-2 instead of Furazolidone and Theophylline Anhydrous. The labels and tags on the containers indicated the misdeclared goods. Statements from involved individuals confirmed misdeclaration and intentional actions. The ld. SDR argued that misdeclaration was deliberate, supported by past instances of selling goods in the open market and discrepancies in delivery locations. The Tribunal found the misdeclaration intentional, as evidenced by manipulated labels and statements from involved parties. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and the penalty on the firm, considering the intentional misdeclaration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that penalties imposed on specific individuals without proper Show Cause Notices were not justified. Additionally, the intentional misdeclaration of goods led to the confiscation and penalty on the firm. The Tribunal's decision was based on evidence of deliberate misdeclaration and lack of natural justice in imposing penalties on individuals without adequate opportunity for defense.