2014 (1) TMI 1344 - AT - Customs

Valuation of goods - Mis declaration of goods - whether the appellant (a courier company) herein had misdeclared the cargo which landed in Ahmedabad to Qatar Airways - Held that - there is no mention as to the consignment was in an identifiable courier company bag of the appellant. The ld. counsel would demonstrate before me that the appellant has got specific courier bags wherein appellant s name is printed in ink along with their address. I find that the panchanama does not indicate that there was a declaration from the sender as regards as the contents in the courier bag. I find that the appellant cannot be held as a person who tried to evade customs duty by misdeclaring the description of the goods, inasmuch as, on perusal of the courier bill of entry filed by the appellant, I find that appellant has filed the said bill of entry based upon the papers received by him from Qatar Airways as well as the sender of the goods from abroad. If the procedure of handing over the courier bags to the courier agency starts only at the courier baggage cell as per procedure, that also after the clearance is done by the authorities, Therefore, appellant cannot be held of filing incorrect declaration - Following decision of Rajesh Krishna Kumar Vadke 2005 (8) TMI 598 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods by the appellant.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 171/93-Cus., dated 16-9-1993.
3. Confiscation of seized goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Confirmation of customs duty and penalty imposition under the Customs Act, 1962.

---

Issue 1: Misdeclaration of imported goods
The appellant, a courier company, filed three Courier Bills of Entry claiming duty exemption under Notification No. 171/93-Cus., dated 16-9-1993. However, upon inspection, the declared goods were found to be cigarettes, not the items listed in the bills. The appellant was accused of misdeclaration and not following prescribed procedures. The lower authorities upheld the charges, leading to the confiscation of the cigarettes and imposition of penalties.

---

Issue 2: Applicability of Notification No. 171/93-Cus., dated 16-9-1993
The appellant claimed exemption under this notification for goods declared as gifts, but the actual contents were commercial in nature, exceeding the defined value for gifts. The appellant's failure to file the correct Courier Bills of Entry was highlighted, leading to the rejection of the exemption claim and imposition of duties.

---

Issue 3: Confiscation of seized goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962
The seized cigarettes were confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption upon payment. The appellant contested the confiscation, citing procedural discrepancies and lack of evidence supporting misdeclaration. The Tribunal analyzed the import procedures, finding the appellant not liable for misdeclaration due to the cargo's initial classification as console cargo, not courier bags.

---

Issue 4: Confirmation of customs duty and penalty imposition
The lower authorities confirmed the customs duty and imposed penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued against the charges, emphasizing procedural adherence and lack of intent to evade duties. The Tribunal considered the evidence, including statements and documents, concluding that the appellant was not at fault for misdeclaration based on the cargo's initial classification and procedural requirements.

---

In the final judgment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant due to the lack of evidence indicating misdeclaration. The appellant's appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief. The decision emphasized adherence to import procedures and the classification of cargo, ultimately absolving the appellant of misdeclaration charges.