2011 (2) TMI 1354 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds diesel confiscation & fines, stresses accurate declarations in customs.

IMRAN HAJI HAROON RUKHNANI Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., JAMNAGAR

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of undeclared diesel and vessel, along with imposed fines and penalties, rejecting the appeal except for the fine ... - Issues involved: Confiscation of undeclared diesel, amendment of Import General Manifest (IGM), confiscation of vessel, imposition of fines and penalties.Confiscation of undeclared diesel:The vessel arrived at the port with excess diesel not declared in the IGM. The Tindel admitted to the excess quantity, leading to seizure and subsequent provisional release for export purposes. The appellant argued that the amendment of the IGM indicated no offense was committed, citing Customs Act provisions and a Calcutta High Court decision. However, the Commissioner found the amendment necessary for export facilitation and did not negate the offense. The Tindel's detailed statement on diesel usage contradicted claims of illiteracy, and the discrepancy in declared quantity supported the department's case. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the diesel and vessel, along with imposed fines and penalties.Amendment of IGM and Confiscation of Vessel:The appellant contended that the Tindel's illiteracy led to the diesel misdeclaration in the IGM. However, the Tribunal found no evidence supporting the illiteracy claim and upheld the confiscation of the vessel and diesel. The owner's involvement in diesel loading indicated awareness, contradicting claims of ignorance. The Customs Act provision regarding conveyance use in smuggling supported the vessel's confiscation, as the owner failed to prove lack of knowledge. The fine imposed on the vessel was deemed nominal considering its value and the diesel quantity involved.Penalties Imposed:The Tindel's penalty was upheld due to his awareness of the excess diesel. The owner's penalty was also sustained, as her involvement in the vessel's operations indicated knowledge of the misdeclaration. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, except for setting aside the fine related to 5000 liters of diesel confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal except for the fine related to 5000 liters of diesel confiscation. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate declarations in the IGM, knowledge of vessel operations by the owner, and penalties for non-compliance with customs regulations.