9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is set aside. Consequently, the penalty also is vacated inasmuch as penalty u/s 112 is dependent on confiscability of goods u/s 111 of the Act. The appellant is entitled to release of the goods against payment of appropriate duty of customs. For the purpose of payment of duty, the goods require to be correctly valued. It appears from the records that the lower authorities did not even attempt valuation in terms of the relevant Valuation Rules. The value declared by the supplier is HK $ 2500. It appears from the records that, in his letter dated 12-3-2003, the appellant, inter alia, claimed that the contents of the baggage had been correctly declared. Hence it has to be held that the appellant (importer) accepted the exporter's declarati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of M/s. Laila International, came to receive the parcel on 20-11-2002. But he stated that the parcel actually belonged to one Shri Juzer Mandsaur of Mumbai, whom he did not know. Nobody by name Juzer Mandsaur could be traced. The appellant was arrested, and released on bail later. Subsequent to his release from jail, summonses were issued to him, but he did not respond. However, he sent a letter dated 12-3-2003 to the customs authorities claiming ownership over the above goods. He wanted to clear the goods by filing Bill of Entry as he was having Import Export Code. In his letter, the appellant also stated that the package had been correctly declared. The department issued a show cause notice dated 27-3-2003 to the appellant proposing c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that, even if any entry on such declaration was found to be wrong, the responsibility of wrong declaration could not be fastened upon the importer. In the absence of mis-declaration of anything by the appellant, the goods are not liable to confiscation and therefore the importer is not liable to be penalised. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the lower appellate authority and particularly submits that the original statement dated 20-11-2002 of the appellant is inculpatory and the same is not affected by his belated retraction. According to ld. SDR, as the offence of mis-declaration charged against the appellant was admitted by him in his original statement, the order of confiscation of the goods cannot be faulted. 3. After giving carefu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof or in the case of goods under transhipment, with the declaration for transhipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 54 . 11. The phrase entry made under this Act comes from Section 46. In terms of Section 82 which reads as below no entry is made by the importer. That is why where as special mention is made of Section 77, there was no mention of Section 82 in the two clauses of Section 111. Section 82. Label or declaration accompanying goods to be treated as entry. - In the case of goods imported or exported by post, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
