Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 24 - CESTAT MUMBAIAmendment to the IGM - Confiscation u/s 111(f) and 111(g) - Held that:- Amendment to the IGM was necessitated because one of the importers after filing the bills of entry chose not to clear the goods; therefore, the goods were required to be sold to new consignees and consequently, fresh bills of lading and invoices were required to be issued. It is in these circumstances, the appellant sought amendment to the IGM. There was no fraudulent intention on the part of the appellant to evade or avoid any Customs duty liability. As regards the invoices issued for the supply of goods are concerned that is the responsibility of the foreign supplier and the shipping line has nothing to do with it. As regards the issue of fresh bills of lading, it is true that new numbers and dates should have been given for the fresh bills of lading. However, this is only technical error and does not reflect any fraudulent intention. In any case section 111(f) deals with a situation where there is a deliberate misdeclaration in the import manifest filed which is not the case herein. Therefore, the provisions of the said section has no application whatsoever in the facts of the present case. Similarly, the goods were not sought to be unloaded in contravention in the IGM. Therefore, the provisions of Section 111(g) are also not attracted. Since there was no fraudulent intention whatsoever and the applicant/appellant had made application for amendment to the IGM mentioning about the facts in its entirety, the said application for amendment should have been allowed by the proper officer in terms of the powers conferred on him. There was no warrant to hold the good liable to confiscation and impose any penalty. In these circumstances, I find that the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, I set aside the same - Decided in favour of assessee.
|