Importers not liable for mis-declaration, fine reduced for value mis-declaration

The tribunal found that the appellants were not liable for mis-declaration of goods quality or violation of the DGFT notification as they acted in good faith and were not the original importers. However, they were held accountable for mis-declaration of value but had their redemption fine reduced to Rs. 1.00 lakh and penalty to Rs. 50,000 due to mitigating circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed in favor of the present importers.

---

---

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods quality, Violation of DGFT notification, Mis-declaration of value

Mis-declaration of goods quality:
The appellant's representative argued that the impugned goods were correctly declared as tin plates second in the Bill of Entry, and no mis-declaration was found by the Customs authorities. It was highlighted that the original importers did not come forward to clear the goods, and the appellants only did so after being allowed by customs. The tribunal agreed that the charge of mis-declaration regarding the quality of goods could not be held against the present importers, as they acted in good faith by coming forward to clear the consignments when the original importers did not do so.

Violation of DGFT notification:
The tribunal noted that the appellants were accused of violating the DGFT notification, which mandates that seconds and defective goods must be imported at designated ports. However, it was found that the specified goods under the Import Policy did not cover tin plate seconds. Since the appellants were not the original importers and only cleared the goods after the original importers did not, the charge of violating the condition relating to import at specified ports was not applicable to them. Therefore, the charge of violation of Section 111(d) could not be made against the appellants.

Mis-declaration of value:
While the tribunal acknowledged that the appellants initially declared a lower value for the impugned goods, they later agreed to pay duty on the higher value determined by the Customs authorities. Consequently, the charge under Section 111(m) for confiscation of the goods and imposition of a penalty was deemed sustainable. Taking into account all circumstances, including the fact that the appellants were not the original importers, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellants. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1.00 lakh, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000. Ultimately, the appeal was partly allowed based on the above considerations.

---