2010 (2) TMI 827 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns confiscation order, penalty, and fine, grants appeal due to errors in Bill of Entry

The Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation, penalty, and fine, allowing the appeal with consequential relief based on the unintentional errors in ... Misdeclaration - declaration had been made on the basis of documents supplied by the foreign supplier and there was no intentional or deliberate wrong declaration or misdeclaration on its part so as to attract the mischief of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act - Assessee interested in getting the goods released as soon as possible to avoid recurring financial burden on account of demurrage, incidental charges – Held that:- order of confiscation under different clauses of Section 111 of the Act is liable to be set aside, the penalty under Section 112 (a) and fine ordered following the confiscation are also liable to be set aside, appeal is allowed with consequential relief Issues:1. Mis-declaration of goods in Bill of Entry2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of Customs Act3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act4. Exemption claimed under Notification No. 21/2002-CusIssue 1: Mis-declaration of goods in Bill of EntryThe case involved the import of goods under a Bill of Entry claiming exemption under a specific notification. However, upon physical examination, it was found that goods other than the declared lithium batteries were imported. The importer attributed the discrepancy to errors in preparing shipping documents, stating it was due to human error and oversight. The declared value also differed from the actual value. The Commissioner held that mis-declaration occurred unintentionally due to confusion and communication gaps. The Tribunal acknowledged the errors as inadvertent and not intentional mis-declaration.Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Section 111 of Customs ActThe Commissioner ordered the confiscation of goods under Section 111(l), (m), and (o) of the Customs Act, along with imposing a penalty and demanding customs duty. The Tribunal reviewed the case records and found that the errors in the Bill of Entry were due to oversight and human error, as acknowledged by the Commissioner. The Tribunal held that the mis-declaration was not intentional, citing previous case laws to support the argument that unintentional errors do not warrant confiscation under Section 111.Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs ActThe Commissioner imposed a penalty on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal found that since the mis-declaration was not deliberate and the goods were eligible for exemption under the notification, no liability for penalty existed. The Tribunal cited relevant case laws to support the position that unintentional errors in declaration do not attract penalties under the Customs Act.Issue 4: Exemption claimed under Notification No. 21/2002-CusThe importer claimed exemption under Sl. No. 217 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus for goods required in connection with petroleum operations. The essentiality certificate was produced belatedly, but the Tribunal held that the goods were eligible for exemption as they satisfied the criteria. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that the purpose for which goods were imported was established, and the benefit of the notification should be extended to the importer.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation, penalty, and fine, allowing the appeal with consequential relief based on the unintentional errors in the Bill of Entry and the eligibility of the goods for exemption under the notification.