TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns confiscation order, finds no intentional misdeclaration of imported goods.</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's order directing the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the ... Confiscation and penalty - Misdeclaration - whether the appellant had intentionally and deliberately mis-declared the goods as non-texturized fabric rather than texturized fabric? Issues:1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act2. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act3. Misdeclaration of imported goods as non-texturised fabric4. Reliability of test reports from CRCL and Indian Institute of Technology5. Interpretation of appellant's agreement to clear consignment under proposed classification6. Intentional misdeclaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act7. Application of the decision in Shree Ganesh International case8. Justification for setting aside the impugned order of the CommissionerAnalysis:1. The appeal challenged the Commissioner's order directing the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, allowing release on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lacs, and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lacs on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.2. The appellant imported Polyester Woven Fabric declaring them as non-texturised based on documents from the overseas supplier. Discrepancies arose when the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) reported the goods as texturised fabric, contrary to a report from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, which confirmed them as non-texturised.3. The appellant, facing financial losses due to delays, agreed to clear the consignment under the proposed classification of texturised fabric. However, the Commissioner misinterpreted the appellant's agreement, leading to allegations of misdeclaration and subsequent penalties.4. The reliability of the CRCL report was questioned against the report from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. The Tribunal leaned towards accepting the appellant's case that the goods were not intentionally misdeclared, citing the need for intentional misdeclaration to trigger Section 111(m) of the Customs Act.5. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Shree Ganesh International case, emphasizing that a wrong declaration made in good faith based on documents from foreign suppliers does not necessarily constitute misdeclaration under the Customs Act.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, rejecting the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The Commissioner's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's genuine intent to clear the consignment promptly to avoid financial burdens, indicating no deliberate misdeclaration.This comprehensive analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, detailing the arguments presented and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
