9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been able to explain the mis-declaration which reveals the nature of a wrong declaration, which was not deliberate. On coming to know the mistake they were able to explain the mistake. If the shipper made a mistake, the importer/CHA cannot be penalized for it. In the light of the above decision and the facts presented by this case, I hold that there was no wilful mis-statement on the part of M/s Bosch Chassis Ltd. The representatives of the CHA have merely relied on the invoice handed over by M/s Bosch Chassis Ltd./ Importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) have imposed penalty upon the representatives of CHA observing that they omitted to compare the invoices with purchase order and B/L. As there is no deliberate act or omission establishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulic Oil Brake Hose. On examination of the consignments by officers of SIIB, it was found that the quantity of the goods imported was 90000 mts., and not 40,000 mts. as declared in B/E. It is the case of appellant that for the said consignment, the shipper had actually raised two invoices bearing Nos. 2011927 and 2011920 for the quantity of 40,000 mts. 50,000 mts. respectively. That when the invoices were scanned mailed to the appellants, by the shipper, instead of these two separate invoices, the shipper had scanned invoice No.20110927 (for 40,000 mts.) twice. Thus instead of receiving two separate invoices, they had received two copies of the same invoice. This invoice was forwarded to the clearing agent who filed the B/E through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1,00,000 under Section 114 (AA) for assisting and handling clearance in respect of the B/E. The appellants filed appeal before the First appellate authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 17.2.2014 upheld the order passed against M/s Bosch Chassis Esystem India Ltd., but dropped the separate penalty imposed on Vijay Kumar Mullankara. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 17.12.2013 modified the penalty imposed upon Shri Gagandeep Singh Shri Satender Singh under Section 112 (a) and the penalty was reduced from ₹ 1,00,000 to ₹ 15,000. The penalty imposed on them under Section 114 (AA) was dropped. The above orders dated 17.2.2014 and 17.12.2013 are under challenge in these appeals. 3. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se situations where export benefits are claimed without exporting the goods and by presenting forged documents. The learned Counsel adverted to the discussion of the Twenty Seventh Report of Standing Committee of Finance to elucidate the intention of inserting this section (114AA). It is seen stated there in, that new section 114AA has been proposed, consequent to the detection of several cases of fraudulent exports which were shown only on paper and no goods crossed the Indian border. According to the counsel the mis-declaration in the instant case, happened only due to inadvertent error. 4. Refuting the contentions of the appellant, the learned DR, strenuously argued that there is mis-declaration of quantity of goods by the appellants. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce in quantity came to their knowledge, they sought clarification from the supplier who then scanned the second invoice acknowledging the mistake. It is submitted that the difference in quantity occurred only due to an inadvertent mistake of the supplier. The learned counsel laying thrust upon the Bill of Lading vehemently argued that if the appellants had any intention of evading duty by mis-declaration they would not have submitted the Bill of Lading which showed the serial numbers of two invoices and also mentioned the entire weight as 9,360 Kgs. This argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellants is not without force. The goods were imported in two containers. The quantity found in container No. ESPU 2010630 carried 8 pallets ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ongly given by foreign supplier in the import invoice and the same was copied by CHA who filed the B/E without referring to the purchase order. The Tribunal held that it was not a case of wilful mis-statement as the goods were correctly described in the purchase order. The penalty imposed under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was therein set aside on finding that it was a mistake. In the case in hand, the quantity of the goods was wrongly stated. Mis-declaration involves an element of mens rea or intention to evade payment of duty by the party. Mis-declaration can occur due to human error also. In the instance case, the appellants have been able to explain the mis-declaration which reveals the nature of a wrong declaration, which was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
