2000 (9) TMI 366 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original confiscating imported goods, Production of additional documents, Misdeclaration in Bill of Entry, Classification of imported goods, Imposition of penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, Vicarious liability of Customs House agent, Redemption fine, Reduction of redemption fine.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original confiscating imported goods with an option for redemption on payment of fine and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The appellant sought to produce additional documents crucial for the appeal, which were allowed to be taken on record by the tribunal in the interest of justice.

2. The appellant, a manufacturer of Tractors and Automotive Parts, imported goods to make their MTS system Y2K compliant. However, a misdeclaration in the Bill of Entry led to the confiscation of goods. The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade duty, attributing the error to incomplete details from the supplier and the Customs House agent's reliance on the invoice.

3. The appellant contended that there was no mala fide intention in the misdeclaration, emphasizing that the goods' detailed description was present in the purchase order. They argued against the imposition of penalty under Section 114A, citing no suppression of facts or intentional misdeclaration. The tribunal noted the absence of wilful misstatement and set aside the penalty.

4. The Customs Department argued that the misdeclaration aimed to avail a Nil rate of duty, making the appellant liable for penalty under Section 114A. They also highlighted the vicarious liability of the Customs House agent, attributing their actions to the appellant. The tribunal considered both sides' submissions before making its decision.

5. The tribunal observed that the appellant had waived the requirement of a show cause notice and had not challenged the classification of goods during the proceedings. They noted the lack of evidence disputing the classification and affirmed that the misdeclaration was not intentional. Consequently, the penalty under Section 114A was revoked, and the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh.

6. In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty under Section 114A due to the absence of mala fide intention in the misdeclaration. While upholding the confiscation of goods, they reduced the redemption fine, considering the circumstances of the case.