9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - Additional Commissioner has applied his discretion in not allowing the amendment and consequently confiscating the goods and imposing the penalty on the appellant. - No infirmity in denying the amendment of Bill of Entry - Decided in favor of revenue. - Customs Appeal No.283 of 2008 Cus(DB) - Final Order No. C/A/58071/2013-CU(DB) - Dated:- 25-10-2013 - Archana Wadhwa And Manmohan Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P K Sharma, AR For the Respondent : Shri Prabhat Kumar, Adv. PER : Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the confiscation of the imported painting with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.50 lakh and has set aside the penalty of Rs.2 lakh imposed upon the importer. Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri P.K. Sharma, learned AR for the Revenue and Shri Prabhat Kumar, 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 only one invoice number dated 4.8.2006 for the clearance of the import shipment whereas there were totally two invoices i.e. without numbers and both dated 4.8.2006 for the same value i.e. Euro 20,000/-. We have also seen that two bills raised by the supplier of the goods and note that both the invoices are dated 4.8.2006. Whereas one painting is described as titled 'Rajasthan', the other painting stand described in the other invoice titled 'Bindu'. The price of both the painting is Euro 20,000/- each. The importers have very strongly contended that inasmuch as both invoices are dated 4.8.2006 issued by the same supplier and as both the invoices were for Euro 20,000/-, the person responsible for filing Bill of Entry under a mistaken belief that both the invoices are for one painting, declared only one painting in the Bill of Entry. On examination of the invoices, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals) accepted the amendment as bonafide mistake and allowed amendment under section 149 of Customs Act. However Revenue therefore comes in appeal before Tribunal against this order. 11. Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 provides for amendment in documents after presentation thereof and the provision reads as under: "149. Amendment of documents. - Save as otherwise provided 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 authorized by the Customs Authority. To amend, the presenting part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is-declaration. Order in first check was prior to 17.8.2006. 17. It can therefore be concluded that amendment of Bill of Entry was rightly rejected by assessing authority finding deliberate misdeclaration and exercised his judicious discretion when intent to evade manifested. Attempt to declare only one painting was there. Mera fact that they have sent the amount through banking channels for payment to foreign seller prior to filing of bill of entry does not mean that the appellants has not violated law. There was no bonafide mistake since facts were within exclusive and conscious knowledge of Respondent. 18. In view above of decision, I hold that confiscation was justified and called for giving option for RF and composition of penalty. No interference to R.F. adjudicated is warranted. However keeping in mind that RF is remaining untouched by my reasoning given above, penalty is reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. 19. Appeal partly allowed to the extent of reduction of penalty only. (Manmohan Singh ) Member (T) In view of above difference in opinion of both the members in this appeal, under mentioned questions arise for reference to the Hon'ble President to resol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
