9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 28 - AT - CustomsDemand of differential duty - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Misdeclaration of goods - Held that - Appellants declared the goods imported as PVC coated fabrics. Samples were taken and sent for examination and in the report of the Textile Committee there is a specific opinion that the goods in question is neither laminated, nor impregnated. In view of this test report, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, whereby the lower authority held that the goods were misdeclared and we find no infirmity whereby the demand of differential duty and the goods were held to be liable for confiscation. - Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that once goods have been cleared under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 the same cannot be confiscated except in pursuance of an order passed in Revision under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 - merit found in the contention of the Revenue that the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside confiscation is not sustainable - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against confirmation of demand, order of confiscation, and imposition of penalty. Appeal against setting aside confiscation of goods found in the godown. Analysis: 1. The case involved M/s Krishna Trading Co filing appeals against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the clearance of PVC coated fabric goods. The goods were misdeclared in terms of coating, lamination, and quantity. The adjudicating authority demanded differential duty and ordered confiscation of goods, penalties were imposed as well. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order but set aside the confiscation of goods previously cleared under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court. The appellant and the Revenue both appealed against different aspects of the order. 3. The appellant argued that the goods were correctly declared as coated fabrics based on the supplier's test report, disputing the findings of the Textile Committee. They claimed the goods could be used for various purposes and that the demand was unjustified. 4. The Revenue supported the adjudication order, emphasizing the misdeclaration of goods based on the Textile Committee's report. They contended that the goods were not as declared and misdeclaration extended to thickness and quantity. 5. The Tribunal found that the goods were misdeclared as per the Textile Committee's report, which stated the goods were not as declared. The Tribunal upheld the demand for differential duty and the confiscation of goods, dismissing the appellant's appeal. 6. Regarding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court case to support the view that goods cleared under fraudulent means could still be subject to confiscation, even if cleared under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal and reinstated the order for confiscation of goods found in the godown. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the demand for differential duty and confiscation of goods. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, reinstating the order for confiscation of goods found in the godown based on the Supreme Court precedent regarding fraudulent clearance.
|
