2019 (2) TMI 501 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - Bubble Air Mattress - benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 Sr. No. 370 - Held that - The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Dilip Kumar Co. 2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has reiterated the principles in observing that in claiming the benefit of exemption notification, the claimant should establish that their case falls within four corners of the exemption notification - In the present case, the appellant has failed to prove their case that the imported goods fall under the description of goods mentioned in the said notification. The benefit of exemption N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 to Bubble Air Mattress, which was wrongly declared as Bubble Air Mattress for special jelly cushion to prevent bed sores . Since the appellant has mis-declared the product in the Bill of Entry therefore, confiscation and imposition of penalty by the lower authorities are justified. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of exemption notification for imported goods
- Misdeclaration of goods in Bills of Entry
- Justification of confiscation and penalty

Interpretation of exemption notification for imported goods:
The case involved an appeal against an assessment order regarding the import of 'Bubble Air Mattresses' under a specific exemption notification. The appellant claimed the benefit of the notification for "special jelly cushions to prevent bed sores." However, upon verification, it was found that the imported goods were actually 'inflatable plastic bed cushions' described as "Bed Type Medical Air Cushion." The issue revolved around whether the imported goods qualified for the exemption under the notification. The Tribunal analyzed the discrepancy between the declared goods in the Bills of Entry and the actual nature of the imported goods. Referring to a previous Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that to claim exemption, the goods must align with the description in the notification. As the appellant failed to establish that the imported goods fell within the scope of the exemption notification, the benefit was denied.

Misdeclaration of goods in Bills of Entry:
The appellant declared the imported goods as "Bubble Air Mattress for special jelly cushion to prevent bed sores" in the Bills of Entry, aiming to avail the exemption. However, the Revenue pointed out that the goods were not as described and did not qualify for the exemption. The Tribunal noted that misdeclaration of the product in the Bill of Entry was a crucial factor in determining the eligibility for the exemption. The discrepancy between the actual nature of the goods and the description provided led to the denial of the benefit under the exemption notification. Consequently, the misdeclaration played a significant role in justifying the confiscation and penalty imposed by the lower authorities.

Justification of confiscation and penalty:
Due to the misdeclaration of the imported goods in the Bills of Entry, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine. Additionally, a penalty was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal affirmed that the misdeclaration and failure to prove eligibility for the exemption warranted the confiscation and penalty as imposed by the lower authorities. The decision to uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal was based on the justification provided by the misdeclaration and subsequent actions taken by the authorities.

This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and conclusions reached by the Tribunal in the case.