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 420 - CESTAT CHENNAIMis-declaration of description of goods - Smuggling of goods - imposition of penalty - Held that:- Goods were found to be mis-declared in its description when the unmutilated goods were found as against declared mutilated goods in the shipping documents and other connected documents. The appellant cleared the bills making payment through Indian Bank. This is recorded by ld. Adjudicating authority in para 19 (5) of his order. He has recorded the sequential evidence in such a manner, that reflects his proper application of mind as to his minute examination of the gravity of the case. Subsequent arrangement between the appellant and consigner is vividly clear as the letter sent on 07.12.2007 shows the date thereon as 17.01.2007. Once the goods were misdeclared that becomes smuggled goods under section 2(39) of the Customs Act 1962. This is done by misdeclaration and fabricating evidence and antedating the same. Record does not reveal bonafide of the consignor as well as the consignee who had hand in glove for misdeclaring description of the goods. The appellant was admittedly to be beneficiary of the goods imported fraudulently. Even though the appellant has not filed the bill of entry, the appellant is answerable under the law to the import by its intimate connection with the above smuggling. The goods became dutiable under section 12 of the Customs Act 1962. Accordingly, the appellant importer is answerable for the mis-declaration. The appellant did not come out with clean hands to prove without leaving any doubt against the mis-declaration. The goods were proved to be smuggled goods. That became property of the state. Re-export of the above import was not sought by the appellant. - However, penalty is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|