Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2005 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (4) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYAppeal to High Court - New ground - Misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods - Confiscation - Imports fabrics - Whether the goods are liable for confiscation u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 ? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the respondent M/s. Kabul Textiles were not issued with any notice to show cause alleging that they were a party to any conspiracy with the importers to evade any customs duty. It is quite probable that at the request of the said Daulat, the respondent agreed to change the invoices/Import Manifest thereby altering the description of the goods but, as rightly held by the CESTAT, the same is insufficient to invoke sub-section (m) of Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962, as the word Entry in the said sub-section is restricted to a bill of entry which was admittedly not filed in the present case. The CESTAT was therefore right in concluding that even in case where the description was changed either in the invoices or in the bill of lading or the Import Manifest, the same was not sufficient to call for confiscation liability of the goods u/s 111(m) of the Act. In our view, the aspect of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, has been directly and squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Pacific International Traders [2002 (1) TMI 1305 - SC ORDER]. The learned second Judicial Member of CESTAT had referred to the case of Dynacast Industries v. C.C.(P) [1999 (1) TMI 192 - CEGAT, MUMBAI]. As long as no bill of entry was filed, as contemplated by Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods could not be said to have not corresponded in respect of value shown with the said entry, in the bill of entry. The CESTAT, was again right in holding that as confiscation could not be upheld, there could be no cause or penal action as well u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. After having considered the Judgment of CESTAT dated 13-8-2004, in our view, the first question (a) does not arise and question (b) has been rightly answered by the learned CESTAT by considering the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sampat Raj Dugar [1992 (1) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT] as well as Pacific International Traders (supra). We, therefore, find that there is no merit in these appeals and consequently, the same are hereby dismissed.
|