9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of misdeclaration of goods in an imported consignment, imposition of penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act, and the appellant's contention of acting in good faith. Misdeclaration of Goods: The case involved the import of consignments declared as wool waste but actually containing synthetic waste. The appellant's consignment was found to have a mix of synthetic fabrics and wool waste. The Collector issued a notice proposing confiscation and penalty, leading to the appeal against the penalty imposition. Appellant's Contention: The advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant had ordered wool waste, not synthetic material, and there was no conspiracy with the supplier. The appellant had not misdeclared the goods and requested leniency based on acting in good faith. Departmental Representative's Argument: The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant caused the import of goods, making them liable to penalty u/s 112 without the need for mens rea or mala fide intent. The department's intelligence suggested the appellant's involvement in influencing the manifest to avoid misdeclaration charges. Correspondence and Reimbursement: Post-shipment, the appellant corresponded with the supplier and was reimbursed a significant portion of the sale proceeds. The appellant's advocate advised settling with the supplier due to legal costs. The Enforcement Directorate dropped proceedings after the reimbursement, indicating lack of deliberate conspiracy. Judgment and Disposition: The Tribunal found no basis for imposing a penalty on the appellant. Citing the Hindustan Steel case, it noted that Section 112 does not mandate a penalty and discretion should favor the appellant. The failure to respond to summons did not imply guilt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order imposing a penalty was set aside.
|
