2023 (8) TMI 1000 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - mis-declaration of quantity of goods - total weight of cargo was found to be 53820 Kgs as against declared weight of 51716 Kgs - quantity of 2104 Kgs has been found in excess over and above declared quantity which is excess by 4.1 % of the declared quantity - HELD THAT - In the present case the appellant have billed the goods as per the standard theoretical weight basis as per the size of the plates. There is no difference in the number of plates, it is obvious that when the weight is calculated as per the size of plate on the theoretical basis, there has to be difference in the weight calculated and shown in the invoice and the actual weight. It is also fact that the appellant had paid the invoice value on the basis of the weight declared in the invoice irrespective that the actual weight is slightly more than the declared weight. The appellant have also discharged the custom duty on the differential weight of the goods. In this fact, there are no mis-declaration on the part of the appellant as there is no dispute that the weight in the invoice was mentioned as per the theoretical weight basis by taking a standard weight for particular size of the plate. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant have made any mis declaration of either weight or value - both the lower authorities not agreed upon in as much as the redemption fine and penalty were imposed. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The case involves mis-declaration of quantity of goods leading to evasion of custom duty, confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

Mis-declaration of quantity of goods:
The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of Hot Rolled Steel Plates, declaring 51716.00Kgs, but the actual weight was found to be 53820 Kgs, exceeding the declared quantity by 4.1%. The department alleged mis-declaration to evade custom duty of Rs.33,257, leading to confiscation of 2104 Kgs of goods and imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000 and penalty of Rs. 15,000. The appellant contended that the weight discrepancy was due to invoicing based on theoretical weight, not intentional mis-declaration to evade duty.

Legal arguments and findings:
The appellant's counsel argued that the weight discrepancy was unintentional as the number of plates remained the same, with variation in weight due to theoretical weight calculation based on plate size. They paid the differential custom duty, emphasizing the absence of mala fide intent. The Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue supported the impugned order, citing relevant judgments.

Judgment and reasoning:
The Member (Judicial) considered both sides' submissions and the records. It was noted that the appellant invoiced the goods based on standard theoretical weight according to plate size, with no discrepancy in the number of plates. Despite the slight increase in actual weight, the appellant paid the invoice value and custom duty on the differential weight. The Member concluded that there was no mis-declaration, as the weight in the invoice was based on theoretical weight, not actual weight. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty imposed by lower authorities were deemed unjustified, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.