Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 236 - MADRAS HIGH COURTConfiscation of goods - Penalty u/s 112(a) - Misdeclaration of goods - Held that:- There is sufficient evidence on record to show that there was a clear understanding between the supplier and the buyer to quote a lesser quantity in the bill of Lading and also to give an impression to the Department that the quantity actually imported was less. Therefore, the provisions of Sec.111(f) is clearly attracted. As regards Sec.111(i), whatever found excess is taken to be as concealed. Especially,w hen it is an LCL container, if the officers happen to be lax in supervision and the custodian also co-operates, it is possible to get away with misdeclaration, even though the chances are remote. Concealment does not necessarily mean that there should be a false bottom or it should be covered by something else. Importation of excess quantity over and above what is declared in the bill of Lading is also concealment and therefore, I hold that Sec.111(i) is also attracted in this case. Therefore, the goods under seizure are liable to confiscation under Sec.111(f) and 111(i) of the custom act, 1962. Tribunal erred in holding that since no Bill of Entry is filed to clear the subject import, there is no case of mis-declaration. The commissioner has not proceeded on the basis of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal, however, misconstrued the appeal as one filed by the respondent in a case falling under section 111(d) which is not correct. It is a case of confiscation by invoking the provisions of Sections 111(f) and 111(i). Enormous material has been culled out by the Commissioner to justify invocation of Sections 111(f) and 111(i). The reasons given by the Commissioner on the basis of the admitted fact/statements and the documents established a case that the importers have, in fact, involved themselves in such an import which renders the goods liable for confiscation under sections 111(f) and 111(i) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal misdirected itself by holding that there is no question of mis-declaration as contemplated under Section 111(d), when the Commissioner has not proceeded with the matter in terms of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal order is erroneous. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|