1998 (10) TMI 249 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Appeal against confiscation of rough diamonds for violation of Customs Act - Misdeclaration of quantity - Violation of Section 111(m) and Section 46(4) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the department challenging the decision of the Collector (Appeals) regarding the confiscation of rough diamonds imported by the respondent. The Deputy Collector had initially confiscated the goods for misdeclaration of quantity and imposed fines and penalties under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act.

2. The respondent imported rough diamonds declaring a weight of 13055.40 carats, but upon weighment, it was found to be only 6760.40 carats. The explanation provided was that the supplier split the supply into two packets, and only one was sent by mistake. The bill of entry declared the quantity as 13055.40 carats, leading to a show cause notice for violation of Section 111(m) and Section 46(4) of the Customs Act. The Deputy Collector did not accept the explanation, leading to an appeal by the importer.

3. The department argued that the importer possessed two sets of documents but did not file the correct declaration, thus violating Section 46(4) of the Customs Act. The possession of two sets of documents was considered crucial in this argument.

4. In response, the respondent's counsel contended that the mistake occurred at the port of export and that there was no evidence of the importer having two sets of documents. Reference was made to a letter from Antwerps Diamond addressing the mistake at the port of shipment, indicating that the importer was not at fault.

5. Upon considering the submissions, the Judge found that the Collector (Appeals) decision was valid. The misdeclaration of the goods' weight was attributed to the supplier, with whom the importer had no direct contract. The letter from the supplier's bank confirmed the mistake at the port of shipment, absolving the importer of any wrongdoing.

6. The Judge concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the Collector (Appeals) order, as the evidence pointed to a mistake made by the supplier at the port of shipment. Therefore, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed.