9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Spectacle Frames and Sunglasses containing 29 cartons of total CIF value of Rs. 5,67,234.62. The consignment was covered by 10 invoices of different overseas suppliers. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry No. 1212, dated 19-7-1999 describing the goods as mentioned in the invoices. Out of the 10 invoices, the dispute in the instant case relates to 2 invoices (357/C3 and 759/A3, both dated 20-6-1999) only wherein the goods were described as "Stock Frame". However, when the Customs examined the goods in respect of the said two invoices, the same were found to be "Sunglasses". The appellants referred the matter to their overseas supplier vide its Fax dated 28-7-1999 for their clarification in the matter. The foreign supplier vide their retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent practice in the Customs House. He further submits that the Commissioner ought to have accepted the explanation of the appellants which is supported by the clarification given by the overseas supplier. The ld. Consultant argues that the appellant acted bona fide and there was no intention to defraud the Government revenue by means of misdeclaration of goods, and as such imposition of fine and penalty was unwarranted and unjustified. In support of this argument, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs : 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) wherein it was held that burden to prove that the importer acted dishonestly or with deleberate object of breaching the law is with the Customs De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ully considered the submissions made from both sides. The issue for consideration is whether the subject goods are liable to confiscation by reason of misdeclaration as to the description of the goods and whether the appellants are liable to penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants assail the order of confiscation on the ground that the description of the disputed goods given in the Bill of Entry is based on the entry in the concerned invoice of the overseas supplier. What is relevant to be seen is whether the appellants have any opportunity to have a look at the goods before filing the Bill of Entry. From the facts of the case it is evident that the appellants had no such opportunity. In the absence of that, obviously he had to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
