High Court Upholds Customs' Confiscation Order for Unmanifested Goods, Emphasizes Steamer Agents' Liability

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld the Commissioner of Customs' order confiscating unmanifested goods due to the appellants' failure to include them in the manifest. The Court imposed a penalty on the steamer agents for non-disclosure, emphasizing the liability of those responsible for accurate manifest filing. The judgment underscores the importance of complying with Customs Act provisions, highlighting the legal consequences of incomplete manifest submissions. The decision establishes a precedent regarding the liability of steamer agents and emphasizes the need for transparency in import procedures to avoid penalties for non-disclosure.

---

---

Issues: Failure to include goods in the manifest, confiscation of unmanifested goods, penalty imposition, application for amendment of IGM, fraudulent intention, liability of steamer agents.

In this case, the appellants, steamer agents, failed to include goods covered by a bill of lading in the manifest for a vessel. The Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the unmanifested goods valued at about Rs.19.69 lakhs under Section 111(f) and (g) with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under Section 112(a). The appellants argued that they applied for an amendment of the IGM under Section 30 of the Customs Act and that there was no fraudulent intention on their part. They cited Tribunal's orders in similar cases but the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's judgment in another case held that non-disclosure of entire goods in the import manifest results in liability of such goods to confiscation and the person in charge liable to penalty. The Court held that the steamer agents were responsible for the omission in filing the Import Manifest and thus liable to penalty, upholding the impugned order and rejecting the appeal.

The judgment highlights the importance of accurate manifest filing and the consequences of failing to include goods in the manifest. It clarifies the liability of steamer agents in such situations and emphasizes the need to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act. The case underscores the significance of transparency in import procedures and the legal repercussions of non-compliance, even in cases where an application for amendment of the manifest has been made. The decision sets a precedent based on the Bombay High Court's ruling, emphasizing the legal responsibilities of those involved in filing import manifests and the penalties for non-disclosure or omissions.

---