Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + Commissioner Customs - 2018 (11) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1764 - Commissioner - CustomsValuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - reliance placed on the NIDB data for redetermining the value - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- In this case the undeclared cargo was noticed at the time of examination and the appellant has paid the entire duty on the declared goods. There is no corroborative material brought on record to reflect any mala fide intention on the part of the appellant. The circumstances of the case discussed above suggest that wrong shipment of the goods by the foreign supplier, was not on account of any intention on the part of the appellant and there is nothing to prove the incident other than a genuine mistake. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that appellant had no mala fide intention to misdeclare the goods and evade the customs duty. Hence, it is not a fit case to impose penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since, the appellant is now not claiming the goods and the appellant submits that the supplier vide letter dated 27-8-2018 above informed the appellant that it had no choice but to relinquish title to the goods, the department is left with no option but to order absolute confiscation of the imported goods. As the goods are absolutely confiscated the question of redemption fine does not arise. Further, since the goods are absolutely confiscated there is no question of payment of duty by the appellant. Instead of the option of redemption given in Order-in-Original, now the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 6002022, dated 16-4-2018 are absolutely confiscated - penalty set aside. Appeal disposed off.
|