Confiscation and penalties fail where an invoice omission is promptly disclosed and no deliberate suppression is proved.

Confiscation and penalty for omission of one invoice from the Bill of Entry were found unsustainable because the omission was admitted to be an oversight, promptly disclosed to the department, and the duty on the omitted invoice was voluntarily offered. The goods had been cleared under the DEPB scheme against Notification No. 89/05-Cus., but these facts did not establish deliberate suppression or mala fide intent, which was necessary to sustain confiscation and penal action against the importer and the CHA. The appellate relief setting aside the confiscation and penalties was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the imported goods and the penalties imposed on the importer and the CHA were sustainable where the omission of one invoice in the Bill of Entry was promptly disclosed to the department and the balance duty was offered to be paid.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared under the DEPB scheme against Notification No. 89/05-Cus., and the omission of the second invoice was admitted to have occurred due to oversight. The importers themselves informed the department of the omission and volunteered to pay the duty attributable to the omitted invoice. On these facts, the element of deliberate suppression or mala fide intent required to justify confiscation and penal consequences was not established.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties were not sustainable and the order setting them aside was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the relief granted to the importer and the CHA by the appellate authority was maintained.

---