Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (10) TMI 1103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mar, learned advocate for the respondent assessee. 2. As per facts on record, the respondents imported a consignment of two paintings valued at Rs. 12,39,852.27 and filed a bill of entry dated 12.8.2006. As said bill of entry mentioned only one painting titled ' Bindu ' on the value of Euro 20,000/-, they subsequently filed a letter requesting for amendment in the Bill of entry praying for inclusion of another painting titled 'Rajasthan'. The appellants submitted that inasmuch as both the paintings were purchased by two different invoices dated 4.8.2006 and inasmuch as both the paintings were showing invoice value of Euro 20,000/-, mention of only one painting in the Bill of entry was due to oversight and was a mistake on their part. 3. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e not allowed, Section 149 would lose its relevance and would become infructuous. 6. The sole point required to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the declaration of one painting in the Bill of Entry by the appellant was on account of oversight or as to whether the same was intentional so as to call for confiscation and penalty imposition. We find that Bill of entry was filed on 12.8.2006 wherein only one painting was mentioned. The request for amendment in the Bill of Entry filed on 12.8.2006 was made by the respondent vide its letter dated 17.8.2006 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Airport. On going through the said letter, we find that the assessee has clearly written that due to oversight they have submitted on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... above factors, we hold that this is not a case of intentional mis -declaration of goods but an unintentional on the part of the person filing the Bill of Entry. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that section 149 is made for such unintentional mistakes. 'Human is to err' and if such bonafide errors are not allowed to be amended, we really fail to understand as to what would be covered by the provisions of section 149 of the Customs Act. 7. In view of the above, we find no merits in the Revenue's appeal. (Pronounced in the court on..........) Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) Manmohan Singh, Member (T) PER : Manmohan Singh 8. I have gone through the draft order prepared by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) wherein appeal of the department h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in Sections 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorise any document, after it has been presented in the custom house, to be amended :    Provided that no amendment of a Bill of Entry or shipping bill or bill of export shall be so authorised to be amended after the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse, or the export goods have been exported, except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, deposited or exported, as the case may be." 12. Above section has conferred discretion on the Customs to protect interest of Revenue and to prevent mis -declaration made deliberately NO amendment is permitted unless that is a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bility to confiscation and penalty under section 111(m), 112 and 125 of the Customs Act. Therefore for invoking penal provisions under Customs law, mens rea is not pre requisite. 15. Based on above declaration, I find that it clearly comes out that mis -declaration was made deliberately to cause loss to Customs There was attempt to get the consignment cleared making mis -declaration which two paintings were imported by declaring only one painting to customs. Despite both invoices were of dated 04.8.2006 and available before filing Bill of Entry on 12.8.2006, respondent did not choose to file both invoices with intention to escape duty liability. 16. It is also observed that if order for first check would have been done by customs, appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates