9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 781 - AT - CustomsMisdeclaration of goods - clearance of CR Engine with spares and accessories - bonafide error or not - EPCG Scheme - Customs Notification No 103/2009 - container was found to be stuffed with 15 drums containing chemicals like Cetane, U-18, U-25, T-25, 80-Octane and Octane. Though these chemicals were reflected in the Invoice No 1399159 dated 16.11.2010, the appellants declared them as parts and accessories of machine instead of showing them separately - Held that - While filing the checklist the all the items covered by the said invoice number were put together und one description CFR Engine with Spares and Accessories an benefit of exemption in terms of EPCG License claimed in respect of entire goods covered by the said invoice. The said check list has been generated on 21.01.2011 and the benefit of exemption claimed in respect of all the goods covered by the said invoice - we do not find that the error/ mistake leading to misdeclaration of the goods was an bonafide error . Nothing has been brought on record to show the bonafides. The error committed by the appellant was not a bonafide error, it was a clear cut case of misdeclaration of goods to clear the goods without payment of duty under exemption - goods valued around ₹ 56 Lakhs have been held liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- which is very reasonable - a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Section 112(a) is also reasonable and justified. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues: Misdeclaration of goods under EPCG scheme, Confiscation under Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962, Redemption fine, Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: 1. Misdeclaration under EPCG Scheme: The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods, misdeclaring chemicals as parts and accessories of a machine to claim EPCG scheme benefits. However, these chemicals were not eligible for the scheme. The appellants admitted the mistake and paid the duty due on the goods. The Commissioner held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing redemption on payment of a fine. 2. Confiscation and Redemption Fine: The appellants argued that the misdeclaration was a bonafide mistake and cited a similar case where the Tribunal set aside confiscation and penalties due to a genuine error. The revenue contended that misdeclaration contravened the Customs Act, justifying confiscation and redemption fine. The Tribunal examined the facts and found that the error was not bonafide, as the chemicals were separately listed in the invoice and correspondence, indicating awareness of the goods' nature and ineligibility for EPCG benefits. The Tribunal cited precedents to support the decision to confiscate the goods and impose a redemption fine of ?1,00,000. 3. Imposition of Penalty: The Tribunal considered past judgments where penalties were upheld for wrong availment of benefits or deliberate acts. The Tribunal found no bonafide error in the appellants' misdeclaration, leading to the imposition of a penalty of ?50,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Precedents and legal principles were cited to support the penalty decision. 4. Final Decision: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on the appellants. The judgment emphasized the lack of bonafide error in the misdeclaration and the justifiability of the penalties under the Customs Act. A miscellaneous application for a change in the cause-title was also allowed by the Tribunal during the hearing.
|
