Tribunal rules in favor of ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. in Customs Act misdeclaration case The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s. ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. in a case involving misdeclaration of goods for a drawback claim under the Customs ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal rules in favor of ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. in Customs Act misdeclaration case
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s. ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. in a case involving misdeclaration of goods for a drawback claim under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held that there was no wilful misdeclaration as the appellant had correctly described and classified the goods but made a mistake in quoting the drawback schedule serial number. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal ruled that claiming exemption based on a genuine belief does not constitute misdeclaration. Consequently, the goods were not liable for confiscation or fines, and the appellant was entitled to the return of the bank guarantee.
Issues: Misdeclaration of goods for drawback claim u/s Customs Act, 1962.
The appellant, M/s. ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd., filed a shipping bill for export of goods declaring them as "Turbo Generators - partial shipment consisting of Gearboxes" under classification RITC 8483 40 00, claiming drawback at 2% of FOB value. However, it was found that the goods were classifiable under 8483 99 for a drawback rate of 1%. Due to this incorrect declaration, the goods were held liable for confiscation u/s 113(i) and (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was given an option to redeem the goods by paying a fine of Rs. 1.50 lakhs u/s 125 and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh u/s 114. The lower appellate authority upheld the decision with a slight reduction in fines. The appellant appealed against this decision, arguing that there was no wilful misdeclaration, citing a mistake in quoting the drawback schedule serial number. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision to support their case. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the lower appellate authority's findings.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant had correctly described and classified the goods for export but made a mistake in quoting the drawback schedule serial number. As there was no wilful misdeclaration, the Customs authority should verify the appellant's claim for drawback. Referring to the Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that claiming exemption based on a genuine belief does not constitute misdeclaration. Since the appellant provided correct particulars about the goods, the question of confiscation and fines did not arise. The appeal was allowed, and the bank guarantee was to be discharged and returned immediately.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
