Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (4) TMI 485 - AT - CustomsConfication of goods - Misdeclaration of goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - Bill of Entry was filed on 1.5.13 and examination report was obtained on 6.5.2013. Thereafter vide letter dated 8.5.2013, the appellant submits that due to mistake of the supplier of goods, the excessive quantity has been dispatched. On perusal of the record, I find that the letter issued by the supplier is undated. Moreover, the supplier has issued two invoices by same number on the same date, i.e. invoice No. SPH046 dated 29.4.2013 for 25000 pcs as well as 50,000 pcs. In these circumstances, I hold that there was a mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the lower authorities has correctly held the goods are liable for confiscation. - However, fine and penalty is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty for mis-declaration of quantity in Bill of Entry. Analysis: The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for Solid Tungsten Carbide Blanks under Advance license, declaring 25,000 pcs, but examination revealed 50,000 pcs. The adjudicating authority held the goods liable for confiscation due to mis-declaration, imposing a redemption fine and penalty. On appeal, the fine and penalty were reduced, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that the fault lay with the supplier, who mistakenly dispatched 50,000 pcs instead of 25,000 pcs. The appellant only discovered this discrepancy during examination, asserting their innocence. The Revenue contended that the excessive quantity on examination warranted confiscation and subsequent fines. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the supplier's invoices and the undated letter explaining the error. Finding a mis-declaration by the appellant, the tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods. However, considering the appellant's intended use for import and export, the tribunal deemed the initial fines excessive and reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 35,000 and penalty to Rs. 10,000. In conclusion, the tribunal disposed of the appeal, emphasizing the mis-declaration's consequences while adjusting the fines for proportionality and fairness in light of the circumstances.
|