Master's penalty for non-declaration of goods set aside under Customs Act - procedural error without intent.

The Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the master of the vessel for non-declaration of goods in the Import General Manifest (IGM). It was determined that the non-declaration was a procedural mistake without any intent to evade duty, as the items were part of the annexure to the Memorandum of Agreement and already acknowledged by customs in other declarations. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the penalty was not upheld under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty for non-declaration of goods in the Import General Manifest (IGM).
2. Whether specific items (cement, dozer caterpillars, motorbike) were required to be declared in the IGM.
3. Determination of mala fide intent or bona fide mistake in non-declaration.
4. Applicability of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty for Non-declaration of Goods in the IGM:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the master of the vessel for failing to declare 700 MT of cement, two dozer caterpillars, and one motorbike in the IGM. The adjudicating authority acknowledged that the cement was hardened and considered rubbish, which might have led the captain to believe it did not need to be declared. The Tribunal noted that the non-declaration of the cement was due to a bona fide belief.

2. Whether Specific Items Were Required to be Declared in the IGM:
The appellant contended that the non-declaration of the dozer caterpillars and motorbike was not mala fide since these items were part of the annexure to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) submitted to customs. The Tribunal observed that the dozer caterpillars were part of the vessel's equipment and classified under heading 89.08 as per Circular No. 37/96. The motorbike, being old and out of order, was considered insignificant with a value of Rs. 5,050/-. The Tribunal concluded that the non-declaration was a bona fide procedural mistake without any intent to evade duty.

3. Determination of Mala Fide Intent or Bona Fide Mistake in Non-declaration:
The Tribunal emphasized that for a penalty to be imposed, mala fide intent must be established. The Tribunal found no conscious effort by the captain to hide the facts from customs, as the items were already part of the MOA and on record. The Tribunal cited the case of M/s. Essar Oil Ltd., where it was held that in the absence of mala fide intent, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act was not warranted. The Tribunal concluded that the non-declaration was due to a misunderstanding of the law and was a procedural error without any intention to evade duty.

4. Applicability of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal noted that Section 112 of the Customs Act requires knowledge of the offense for a penalty to be imposed. The Tribunal found that the captain's belief that the items were part of the vessel and not required to be declared separately was bona fide. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.

Separate Judgment by Member (Technical):
Member (Technical) disagreed with the order to set aside the penalty, arguing that the master of the vessel is required to file a correct IGM under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Member (Technical) noted that the omission of items in the IGM is sufficient for penalty under Section 112(a) without requiring intent or mala fide. However, considering the lenient view already taken by the Commissioner, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-.

Resolution of Difference of Opinion:
The matter was referred to a third Member due to the difference of opinion between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical). The third Member (Judicial) concluded that the items were declared in the Cargo declaration and Ship's Store declaration, which were acknowledged by customs. Therefore, there was no basis for confiscation under Section 111(f) or penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The third Member agreed with Member (Judicial) that the penalty should be set aside.

Final Order:
In view of the majority order, the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---