2017 (9) TMI 925 - AT - Customs

Interpretation of statute - importer - whether or not the appellant is considered to be an importer of the impugning goods? - Held that - the term importer is clearly defined in the Act. It includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be importer. These are to be established by factual enquiry - When the appellant denies that he did not import goods and did not hold himself to be the importer of such goods, then it is for the Revenue to categorically establish that the appellant was indeed the owner of the goods. Except for the Bill of Lading which itself is being disputed as a mistaken transaction by the shipper, there is no other evidence on record to hold the appellant as the importer or person behind the importation of such goods. Admittedly, there is no evidence that the appellant received invoice, packing list or remitted any money towards impugning goods. In fact, there are correspondence to show that the appellants protested with the supplier on the receipt of consignment in his name. Without commenting on the genuineness of these correspondents, it can still be concluded that the appellants do not fall within the statutory scope of importer under Section 2(26). Misdeclaration of imported goods - penalty - Held that - Section 46 deals with entry of goods on importation. The importer of any goods shall make entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer, a bill of entry for home consumption in the prescribed form. A bill of entry shall include all the goods mentioned in the Bill of Lading given by the carrier to the consignor. Section 46(4) stipulates that the importer while presenting the bill of entry shall make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of the contents of such bill of entry and shall, in support of his declaration produce to the proper officer the invoice, if any, relating to the imported goods - in the present case, there has been no bill of entry filed by any person. The appellants claim that they have not filed any bill of entry - the Bill of Lading is not an assessing document for custom authorities. It cannot substitute a bill of entry - in this regard, the original authority had fallen in error in appreciating the legal provisions. The appellant did not file bill of entry or did not commit any act or omission which will render the goods liable for confiscation. They were contesting their connection/ownership of the impugned goods. The only evidence available is Bill of Lading issued in the name of the appellant. As already noted, the appellant did not make any attempt to clear the goods or abet any other person in clearing the goods - the evidences are not sufficient to bring in penal consequences under Section 112 of the appellant. The impugned order are set aside in so far as it relates to duty liability or penalty as confirmed against the appellant - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the appellant can be considered an "importer" of the goods in question.
2. Assessment of misdeclaration and penal consequences regarding the impugned goods.

Issue 1: Appellant's Status as an Importer:

The judgment revolves around whether the appellant can be deemed the "importer" of the goods under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. The original authority contended that the appellant was the importer based on the Bill of Lading in their name. However, the appellant denied importing the goods or holding themselves out as the importer. The tribunal highlighted that the term "importer" includes any owner or person holding themselves out as an importer, requiring factual evidence to establish this. Despite the Bill of Lading being in the appellant's name, there was no other evidence indicating their ownership or involvement in the importation process. The tribunal concluded that the appellant did not fall within the statutory definition of an "importer."

Issue 2: Misdeclaration and Penal Consequences:

The judgment delves into the question of misdeclaration and its penal consequences concerning the impugned goods. Section 46 of the Customs Act mandates the filing of a bill of entry for the proper assessment of imported goods. However, in this case, no bill of entry was filed. The original authority inferred misdeclaration based on the Bill of Lading, which the tribunal found legally unsound. The tribunal emphasized that misdeclaration can only be established through the bill of entry, not the Bill of Lading. Citing legal precedents, including Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions, the tribunal clarified the legal requirements for misdeclaration and import liability. Ultimately, the tribunal ruled that the appellant's actions did not warrant duty liability or penal consequences related to the impugned goods, overturning the impugned order in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the critical issues surrounding the appellant's status as an importer and the assessment of misdeclaration and penal consequences, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the tribunal.