2025 (5) TMI 664 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty - petitioner had prior knowledge about the mis declaration of the goods or not - foreign seller communicated a recall of the cargo due to erroneous loading prior to examination of the goods - appellants relinquished their ownership rights - HELD THAT - It was not coming out from the facts of the case that the custom broker was intimated for 100% examination and left without information. In that circumstances it cannot be held that the appellants were having prior knowledge of mis declaration of the goods as the foreign supplier admitted his mistake and the appellant is not claiming the ownership of the said consignment - In that circumstances benefit of doubt comes in favour of the appellant. Therefore the appellant is not at fault for mis-declaration found in bill of entry no. 5405619 dated 11th September 2021 - no penalties can be imposed on the appellant having act of mis declaration in bill of entry. The demand of duty against the bill of entry no. 5257900 dated 31st August 2021 is set aside and no penalty is imposable on the appellants. In that circumstances impugned order qua demand of duty against the bill of entry no. 5257900 dt. 31st August 2021 is set aside and no redemption fine and penalties were imposable against the said bill of entry. Conclusion - An importer who relinquishes ownership rights upon timely communication of a foreign seller s error and without knowledge of mis-declaration cannot be held liable for penalties or duty demands under the Customs Act. Appeal allowed.

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this matter are:

1. Whether the appellants can be held liable for mis-declaration of goods under Bill of Entry No. 5405619 dated 11th September 2021, given that the foreign seller communicated a recall of the cargo due to erroneous loading prior to examination of the goods, and the appellants relinquished their ownership rights accordingly under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Whether the appellants are liable for duty demand, confiscation, and penalties on a past import under Bill of Entry No. 5257900 dated 31st August 2021, where the allegation of mis-declaration is based solely on assumption and presumption without substantive evidence.

3. The validity and sustainability of the proceedings initiated against the appellants for alleged mis-declaration and consequent penalties and confiscation.

Issue 1: Liability for Mis-declaration under Bill of Entry No. 5405619 dated 11th September 2021

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Customs Act, 1962 governs import procedures, including filing of Bills of Entry and the consequences of mis-declaration of imported goods. Section 23 of the Customs Act allows relinquishment of ownership rights by the importer, which can impact liability for goods imported.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal carefully examined the timeline and facts surrounding the filing of the Bill of Entry and the subsequent communication from the foreign seller. The appellants filed the Bill of Entry on 11th September 2021 declaring the goods as white wood powder. On 18th September 2021, before the physical examination of the goods, the appellants received an email from the foreign seller stating that the container was wrongly loaded due to a mistake and the cargo was recalled. The appellants promptly informed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and relinquished their rights over the goods under Section 23 of the Customs Act, indicating they did not claim ownership of the mis-shipped consignment.

The Tribunal noted that the customs broker was instructed to conduct 100% examination, but the goods were not available for inspection initially due to the recall. Subsequent physical examination revealed the actual contents as 50 bags of white wood powder and 650 bags of white pepper, indicating mis-declaration. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the appellants had no prior knowledge of the mis-declaration at the time of filing the Bill of Entry and had acted in good faith upon receiving the foreign seller's communication.

Key Evidence and Findings: The critical evidence was the foreign seller's email admitting the loading error and recalling the cargo, and the appellants' immediate communication to customs authorities relinquishing ownership rights. The Tribunal found no credible evidence that the appellants had knowledge or intent to mis-declare.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the appellants relinquished their ownership rights before examination and without any knowledge of mis-declaration, the Tribunal held that they cannot be held liable for mis-declaration or penalized under the Customs Act for the consignment under Bill of Entry No. 5405619.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the appellants should be liable as the goods were mis-declared and penalties imposed were justified. The Tribunal rejected this on the ground that the appellants acted in good faith and the mis-declaration was due to the foreign seller's error, not the appellants' willful act.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that no penalties or duty demands are sustainable against the appellants for Bill of Entry No. 5405619 dated 11th September 2021, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants.

Issue 2: Alleged Mis-declaration in Past Import under Bill of Entry No. 5257900 dated 31st August 2021

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Customs Act requires that mis-declaration be established by evidence before demanding duty, confiscation, or penalties. Mere assumptions or presumptions without supporting evidence cannot sustain such demands.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Revenue's allegation of mis-declaration in the past import was based solely on assumption and presumption, without any documentary or substantive proof. No evidence was brought on record to establish that the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 5257900 were mis-declared.

Key Evidence and Findings: The absence of any evidence or material to substantiate the claim of mis-declaration was pivotal. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof required to justify confiscation or penalty.

Application of Law to Facts: Given the lack of evidence, the Tribunal held that the consignment under Bill of Entry No. 5257900 is not liable for confiscation, and the demand for duty and penalties cannot be sustained.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants contended that the allegations were baseless and founded on mere conjecture. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing the requirement of proof in such matters.

Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the demand of duty, confiscation, and penalties against the appellants for Bill of Entry No. 5257900 dated 31st August 2021.

Issue 3: Sustainability of Proceedings Against the Appellants

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Proceedings under the Customs Act must be founded on credible evidence and proper application of law. The principles of natural justice and burden of proof are paramount.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the entire factual matrix and procedural history. It found that the appellants had acted in good faith and that the mis-declaration in one consignment was attributable to the foreign seller's error, while the other consignment's mis-declaration was unproven. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the appellants for duty demand, confiscation, and penalties were not sustainable.

Key Evidence and Findings: The prompt communication by the appellants to customs authorities, the foreign seller's admission of error, and the lack of evidence for past mis-declaration were critical factors.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles of Section 23 of the Customs Act and evidentiary standards to conclude that the appellants are not liable for penalties or confiscation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's insistence on penalties was rejected due to lack of proof and the appellants' bona fide conduct.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that no proceedings are sustainable against the appellants and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.

Significant Holdings:

"It cannot be held that the appellants were having prior knowledge of mis declaration of the goods as the foreign supplier admitted his mistake and the appellant is not claiming the ownership of the said consignment."

"Benefit of doubt comes in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is not at fault for mis-declaration found in bill of entry no. 5405619 dated 11th September, 2021."

"Such allegation has been made against the appellant by the Revenue without any evidence brought in record... The said allegation is only on assumption and presumption basis."

"We hold that the consignment covering bill of entry no. 5257900 dated 31st August, 2021 is not liable for confiscation as the mis-declaration has not been proved by the Revenue."

"No penalties can be imposed on the appellant having act of mis declaration in bill of entry no. 5405619 dated 11th September, 2021."

"No proceedings are sustainable against the appellants."

The Tribunal established the core principle that an importer who relinquishes ownership rights upon timely communication of a foreign seller's error and without knowledge of mis-declaration cannot be held liable for penalties or duty demands under the Customs Act. Further, allegations of mis-declaration must be supported by evidence and cannot rest on assumptions or presumptions. The burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish mis-declaration for confiscation and penalties.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders demanding duty, confiscating goods, and imposing penalties on the appellants for both the consignments in question and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.

← Previous Next →