TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants in cargo mis-declaration case.</h1> <h3>M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and M/s. JM Baxi & Company Versus Commissioner of Customs, Kandla</h3> M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and M/s. JM Baxi & Company Versus Commissioner of Customs, Kandla - 2014 (313) E.L.T. 401 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:1. Mis-declaration of imported cargo as 'Crude Palm Oil' in the IGM.2. Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(f) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Provisional release of seized goods and imposition of penalties.Detailed Analysis:1. The main issue in the appeals was the mis-declaration of imported cargo as 'Crude Palm Oil' in the IGM. The appellant argued that there was no mis-declaration as they were not responsible for the filing of IGM and that the carotene value could have reduced from more than 500 to less than 500 due to a long gap between loading and sampling. Reference was made to a judgment stating that the value declared in the IGM was not considered mis-declaration for confiscation. The appellant also highlighted exemptions provided in relevant notifications for crude palm oil of edible grade.2. Regarding the confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(f) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Tribunal analyzed the provisions and held that incomplete description in the IGM should not lead to confiscation. It was emphasized that the primary responsibility for declaration in the manifest lies with the carriers, and if they are not at fault, confiscation is not justified. The Tribunal found no evidence of instructions from the appellants for mis-declaration, leading to the conclusion that confiscation was unwarranted.3. The issue of provisional release of seized goods and imposition of penalties was also addressed. The Tribunal observed that if imported goods are not liable for confiscation, there is no basis for imposing penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the order regarding confiscation and penalties was set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed with consequential relief, if any. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper documentation and the responsibility of carriers in manifest declarations to avoid unjust confiscation and penalties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
