9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant imported '10 kgs. of 1, 3-DIHYDROXYNAPHTHALENE vide HAWB No. 772540468746 dated 12.06.2018 through FEDEX.FEDEX filed courier Bill of Entry bearing No. CBEXIII_DEL_2018-2019_2806_14398 dated 28.06.2018. As per the information on the package, FEDEX declared the value of goods at USD 900.00 (FOB), equivalent to assessable value of Rs. 75,328/- involving customs duty of Rs. 20,892, issued by Shanghai Hohance Chemical Co. Ltd., China. 3. The goods were examined and it was found that declared value of the goods appeared to be on lower side. Therefore, the appellant (through Fedex) was asked to produce value evidence. In reply, the appellant submitted the proforma invoice No. HH201805282N dated 28.05.2018 for USD 21,500.00 (CIF), covering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962. The appellant vide their letter dated 06.07.2018 requested that they do not want personal hearing and show cause notice in the present case and further requested to clear their goods on nominal fine and penalty. 4. As the appellant had requested to waive the requirement of show cause notice and personal hearing vide their letter dated 06.07.2018, the Adjudicating Authority held that the appellant has declared the goods as "10 kgs. of 1, 3- DIHYDROXYNAPHTHALENE", imported vide AWB No. 772540468746. The appellant declared the value of the goods as USD 900.00 (FOB), equivalent to assessable value of Rs. 75,328/-, involving customs duty of Rs. 20,892/- and submitted invoice No. 20180619 dated 20.06.2018. The declared value of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the goods. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who vide order dated 17.07.2020 rejected the appeal, upholding the adjudication order. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant urges that the Court below have failed to appreciate the scheme of filing 'courier Bill of Entry', which is filed by the 'Authorised courier' under the Customs Act read with the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 read with the Courier Import and Export (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, as amended. Under Regulation 4(2) of Courier I&E Regulation, 2010, imported goods shall bear a declaration from the sender or consigner, regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd that the appellant have remitted the price as per the proforma invoice through 'Authorised banking channel' and have recorded such transaction in the books of account maintained in the ordinary course of business. 11. Further urges that the consigner /shipper located in China have admitted their mistake and have also regretted vide their e-mail dated 29.06.2018, enclosing the correct final invoice. Further that there is no allegation of any collusion between the appellant and the shipper (located in China), and/or the courier (Fedex). 12. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the appellant prays that no case of any mis-declaration is made out against the appellant-importer, and it is evidently a clerical error on the part of the shippe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y malafide is made out against the appellant. At best, it is the mistake of the authorised courier who was not vigilant at the time of booking of the courier parcel to ensure the correct declaration by the shipper. I further find that no case of any collusion is made out against the appellant shipper and /or against the courier. I further find that penalty have been imposed mechanically without proper appreciation of the facts and the law applicable.
15. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside the order of confiscation as well as the penalties imposed under section 112(a) and 114AA of the Act. Thus, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced on 24.02.2021). X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
