2012 (11) TMI 248 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and penalty - Mis-declaration - clearance of the imported goods declared as Old & Used Electrical Transformer without Oil - bill of entry covered four containers - container was found to be Secondary/Defective CRGO Electrical Grade Steel Strips in regular Shape & Size - appellant wrote a letter to the customs indicating that as per their information one container was interchanged with the container of another importer M/s. Dynamo Stamping Industries at Bombay Held that - Interchange of containers has taken place at the hands of the supplier, without any involvement of the appellant. The mis-declaration of the goods, if at all is only a technical lapse on the part of the importer, who without even knowing about such interchange has declared the goods as per the orders placed by him - He cannot be held guilty of any mala fide mis-declaration so as to attract confiscation or penalty

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods leading to confiscation and penalty.
2. Interchange of containers by the supplier.
3. Application of legal precedents regarding mala fide intent in mis-declaration cases.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a bill of entry for imported goods declared as "Old & Used Electrical Transformer without Oil." Upon examination, it was discovered that one container actually contained "Secondary/Defective CRGO Electrical Grade Steel Strips." Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for mis-declaration, resulting in confiscation and a redemption fine. The appellant appealed against this decision, arguing that the container mix-up was not intentional.

2. Another importer addressed a letter confirming that the container mix-up was due to the supplier's error, not the appellant's mala fide intent. The supplier had mistakenly interchanged containers, leading to the confusion. Both the appellant and the other importer requested permission to interchange the containers without any fines or penalties, emphasizing the lack of intent to deceive customs authorities.

3. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents where similar situations were considered. In previous cases, it was established that when a wrong shipment by a foreign supplier results in mis-declaration, it does not reflect mala fide intent on the part of the importers. The Tribunal upheld that if there is no intent to mis-declare goods and the importer acted in good faith, confiscation or penalties are not justified. Applying this legal reasoning to the current case, the Tribunal found that the mis-declaration was a technical lapse caused by the supplier's error, not the appellant's deliberate wrongdoing. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the confiscation and penalty were revoked.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the sequence of events, the legal arguments presented, and the application of legal precedents to arrive at the final decision.