9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee containers were in accordance with the declaration. However, the fourth container was found to be "Secondary/Defective CRGO Electrical Grade Steel Strips in regular Shape & Size". In the meanwhile, the appellant wrote a letter to the customs indicating that as per their information one container was interchanged with the container of another importer M/s. Dynamo Stamping Industries at Bombay. As such, they requested that the container which was offloaded at Bombay should be interchanged with the container found to be containing goods of Bombay importer. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for mis-declaration of the goods resulting in confiscation of the same with an option to the appellant to redeem on payment of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hange of container without any fine and penalty. 4. To the more or less, same effect is the letter addressed by the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs making a prayer for interchange of the containers, which stand wrongly shipped by the supplier. 5. It is further seen that the Assistant Commissioner, Jaipur addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Bombay seeking the status of the bill of entry filed by M/s. Dynamo Stamping Industries and the decision taken in the matter. Subsequently, another letter was written by the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur on 10-10-2006 making a request for interchange of the container and releasing the correct container to them, which was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter are not in doubt, there being no intent to mis-declare goods. To the same effect is the Tribunal decision in the case of HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. v. C.C., New Delhi reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 349 (Tri.-Del.). 8. By applying the ratio of the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that admittedly the interchange of containers has taken place at the hands of the supplier, without any involvement of the appellant. The mis-declaration of the goods, if at all is only a technical lapse on the part of the importer, who without even knowing about such interchange has declared the goods as per the orders placed by him. He cannot be held guilty of any mala fide mis-declaration so as to attract confiscation or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
