9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice withdrawn from the post parcel, the Customs officers found that the appellant had mis-declared the value of the imported goods. The value as per the proforma invoice was 7462.80 USD whereas the appellant had declared the value as 1926 USD and the goods were declared as jewellery made of silver and other metals. Shri Shivam A. Patel, authorized signatory of the appellant in his statement dated 27/05/2006 stated that the appellant had placed order for standard silver jewellery having low cost stones whereas the supplier had sent silver jewellery of American standard having high priced stone and that they had no intention to evade customs duty. 3. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant asking them as to why the imported silver j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Section 82 of the Customs Act, 1962, governs the goods which make entry through post parcel. It is also his submission that the appellant had, in fact, filed a declaration which is not required under Section 82 of the Customs Act, 1962, which categorically provides for accepting declaration on any label accompanying goods deemed for import or export and it is on record that the value was correctly recorded on the said documents. It is his submission that the appellant had no reason to declare lower value as it is undisputed that they had imported the jewellery and the exporter had filed invoice along with the consignment. He would submit that in any case, confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, for the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with the mandate given in Section 82 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is reproduced below: Section-82: Label or declaration accompanying goods to be treated as entry :- In the case of goods imported or exported by post, any label or declaration accompanying the goods, which contains the description, quantity and value thereof, shall be deemed to be an entry for import or export, as the case may be, for the purposes of this Act. 12. It can be seen from the holistic reading of both the sections in case of goods imported by post parcel, declaration accompanying goods shall be deemed to be a declaration for discharge of customs duty. It is undisputed that there was an invoice accompanying the post parcel which indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of baggage in the declaration made under Section 77.any goods which do not correspond (m) in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof or in the case of goods under transshipment, with the declaration for transshipment referred to in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 54. 11. The phrase entry made under this Act comes from Section 46. In terms of Section 82 reads as below no entry is made by the importer. That is why whereas special mention is made of Section 77, there was no mention of Section 82 in the two clauses of Section 111. Section 82. Label or declaration accompanying goods to be tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any contravention or lapse can render the goods liable for confiscation and the declarant liable to penalty. In the case of baggage, as per Section 77 of the Customs Act the declaration is made by the passenger orally. Section 82 which deals with post parcels is entirely different in construction and in coverage. It does not require the importer to make a declaration. The declaration made by the exporter abroad is deemed to be an entry for the goods. This is a very important difference. Even if an entry is found to be wrong the responsibility of wrong declaration cannot be fastened upon the importer. It would appear that Section 111 of the Act takes cognizance of this situation. Clauses (l) and (m) Section 111 read as below: (l) any dutiab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal in the case of M. Vasi (supra) that the adjudicating authority in that case has dropped the proceedings on the very same ground that the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to the goods, which arrived through post parcel. The appeal was filed by the Revenue. We find no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the above reproduced ratio will squarely cover the issue before us and goods arrived by post parcel will not liable for confiscation under Section 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation, the consequent penalty imposed under Section 112(a) on the appellant Shri P. Kumar is also unwarranted. Accordingly, the impugned order to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
