9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order as to what is the deficiency in the declarations made in the import manifests. We do not therefore, see any justification for confiscating the goods under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act. primary responsibility for declaration in the manifest is that of the owners or the agents of the vessel or the aircraft and if they are exonerated, it would not be appropriate to confiscate the goods under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act particularly when there is no evidence to show that the declarations in the manifest were made under the instructions of the appellants - there could be other categories of crude palm oil of edible grade, which do not have an acid value and bjta carotene value as specified in Notification No.21/2002-Cus, as mentioned. The only will be that such Crude Palm Oil of edible grade will not be eligible to get the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : C/22 to 24 of 2006 & C/1024 of 2006 - Final Order Nos. A/11330-11333/2013-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 8-10-2013 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Rajesh Rawal Mr. Ruban George, Advocates For the Respondent: Shri K.J. Kin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ben George (Advocate) appeared on behalf of all the appellants and argued that there was no mis-declaration on the part of the main appellant as they are not responsible for the filing of IGM. It was their case that Crude Palm Oil of edible grade was declared as such as per the documents available with the shipping lines. It was also argued that as per Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962, there is no requirement that detailed description of the imported goods along with Carotene Value is required to be mentioned. He further emphasized that the carotene value was more than 500 mg. per kg. when the goods were dispatched from the supplier country. He relied upon the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore vs. Ruchi Soya Industries, Indore, under which it has been held by the Hon ble High Court that carotene value of crude palm oil reduces on day to day basis. It was his case that there was a long gap between the crude palm oil loaded from abroad to the date when the samples were drawn. In view of the law laid down by Karnataka High Court, the Carotene value in the consignment could have reduced from more than 500 to less than 500. 5. Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 54] 7.1 It is observed from the above provisions of Section 111(f) that the same is applicable to a situation where imported cargo is not included in the IGM. The Performa for IGM does not include columns on valuation, description and classification to be done by an importer. It is also evident from the above provision that there is no indication that any incomplete description given in the IGM should be treated as mis-declaration for confiscation of imported cargo. In the present proceedings a description of goods was given in the IGM based on the documents available with the shipping lines. It has been held by CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Sigma Electronics vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur (supra) as follows in Para 7.3. 7.3 The Collector has confiscated certain items under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act on the ground that they were not declared in the manifest. The Counsel for the appellants contends that the manifest is prepared in general terms and is not intended to give detailed description of the goods imported. Moreover, there is no column in the import manifest for declaration of value. The manifest is prepared by the shi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e two forms requiring declaration of value. The description of goods is also given broadly, such as machinery, electronics, articles of goods etc. and precise description of goods contained in each consignment which may comprise a large number of packages does not appear to be a requirement. The Collector has not specified in his order as to what is the deficiency in the declarations made in the import manifests. We do not therefore, see any justification for confiscating the goods under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act. We agree with the Counsel for the appellants that the primary responsibility for declaration in the manifest is that of the owners or the agents of the vessel or the aircraft and if they are exonerated, it would not be appropriate to confiscate the goods under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act particularly when there is no evidence to show that the declarations in the manifest were made under the instructions of the appellants. 7.2 It is seen from the above observation that the description of goods in IGM is required to be given broadly and precise description of the imported goods is not the requirement and it was held that no confiscation is warranted under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
