1999 (9) TMI 267 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the goods were properly manifested under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Whether penalties were imposable under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Whether the goods were meant for Nepal and if they should be treated as transit goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper Manifestation of Goods:
The appellants, M/s. Pasupati Trade Link, Kathmandu, Nepal, were importers of silk yarn. Two containers unloaded at Calcutta docks on 1st June 1998 and 24th May 1998 were not properly manifested in the Import General Manifest (IGM) as required under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Container Agents, M/s. Crescent Shipping Agency (I) Pvt. Ltd., and the Vessel Agents, M/s. Samsara Shipping Pvt. Ltd., admitted that the containers were not included in the IGM due to the absence of consignee details. The adjudicating authority noted this as a violation of Section 30 and Regulation 3 of the Import Manifest (Vessels) Regulations, 1972.

2. Liability to Confiscation:
The adjudicating authority concluded that the goods were imported contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act and were liable to confiscation. The goods were absolutely confiscated, and penalties were imposed on the appellants and other involved parties. The appellants argued that the goods were meant for Nepal and should not be subjected to confiscation under Indian customs laws. They relied on the Tribunal's decision in Water Trading Corporation v. CC, Calcutta, which held that goods in transit to Nepal were not liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act.

3. Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act were imposed on the appellants, treating them as importers. The adjudicating authority penalized them for being concerned with goods improperly imported. The appellants contended that the goods were for Nepal and that the discrepancies in documentation were due to delays in opening the letter of credit. They also cited the Tribunal's decision in Water Trading Corporation v. CC, Calcutta, which stated that penalties were not imposable on goods in transit to Nepal.

4. Goods Meant for Nepal:
The appellants provided extensive documentation showing that the goods were ordered for Nepal and that the delay in opening the letter of credit caused confusion. They argued that the goods were not liable to confiscation as they were meant for Nepal, supported by documents from Nepal Rastra Bank and other relevant authorities. The Tribunal noted that the goods were indeed meant for Nepal and that the appellants had satisfactorily explained the circumstances leading to the discrepancies in the IGM.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the goods were meant for Nepal and should be treated as transit goods. The confiscation of the goods was set aside, and the penalties imposed on M/s. Pasupati Trade Link were also annulled. The Tribunal ordered that the goods be allowed to transit to Nepal, subject to usual safeguards, and allowed the appeals filed by M/s. Pasupati Trade Link with consequential relief as per law.