9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962 for misdeclaration, weight discrepancies, and document inconsistencies. Analysis: The judgment pertains to three appeals challenging an order confiscating 65 bales of Chinese silk yarn under Sections 111(d), (f), (1) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and (b). The grounds for confiscation included misdeclaration, weight discrepancies, and document inconsistencies. The appellants argued that the goods were confiscated without allowing them to file a Bill of entry for clearance, emphasizing that the objections raised were peripheral and insufficient for confiscation. They contended that the description discrepancies were minor, as "Dupian" was a type of raw silk, aligning with the manifest. Similarly, they explained the weight difference of 44 kgs within the container, attributing it to various factors, not warranting confiscation. Moreover, discrepancies in the port of discharge between the Ocean Bill of Lading and House Bill of Lading were clarified as necessitated by cargo availability, asserting that the manifested goods were not clandestinely imported. The shipping agency representative emphasized their role in manifesting goods, denying grounds for penalties. The Judge noted that the goods were manifested, precluding clandestine import, and discrepancies in description, weight, and port were satisfactorily explained, not constituting legal violations for confiscation. Consequently, the confiscation under Sections 111(d), (f), (1) and (m) was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of penalties and confiscation orders. The Customs Authorities were directed to permit the appellants to clear the goods upon duty payment in compliance with the law.
|
