2017 (7) TMI 584 - AT - Customs

Importer's Intent Not to Evade Duty Upheld by Tribunal

The Tribunal upheld the decision to vacate the seizure of imported spares for a dredger, ruling that the importer did not intend to evade duty. The ... Misdeclaration of imported goods - whether the respondent had mis-declared the imported of spares along with clearance of dredger claiming NIL rate of duty, claiming benefit under Customs N/N. 21/2002 Sl. No. 353A consequently, non-payment of SAD by N/N. 20/2006? - Held that: - there is no dispute as to that the spares which were found on the dredger were not sought to be cleared as individual items but were considered by the respondent as mandatory spares - the Revenue has not been able to controvert satisfactorily, the factual findings recorded by the adjudicating authority as reproduced herein above. In my view, the factual findings of adjudicating authority are correct and the adjudicating authority was correct in vacating the seizure of the spares in respect of the goods imported by the respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Mis-declaration of imported spares for dredger claiming NIL rate of duty.2. Non-disclosure of separately purchased spares in Bill of Entry.3. Allegation of attempting to clear spares duty-free.4. Dispute regarding intention to file a separate Bill of Entry for spares.5. Seizure of spares and subsequent adjudication.Analysis:1. The appeal raised concerns about mis-declaration of imported spares for a dredger to claim a NIL rate of duty. The respondent was accused of not disclosing separately purchased spares in the Bill of Entry, which led to suspicions of attempting duty-free clearance. The authorities discovered spares on the dredger that were not declared during the initial filing, prompting a re-examination and questioning of the importer's intentions.2. The Departmental Representative argued that the importer failed to deliver the imported manifest of goods carried on the vessel, violating Customs Act Section 111(f). They contended that the spares were not explicitly declared in the Import General Manifest (IGM) or Bill of Entry, raising doubts about the intention to clear them duty-free.3. The respondent's Counsel defended the impugned order, stating that the spares were mentioned in the remarks column and were essential for the dredger's operation. They emphasized the intention to clear the spares separately, indicating compliance with regulations.4. The adjudicating authority examined the factual findings regarding the spares, noting that while not declared as cargo, they were acknowledged in the remarks column of the IGM. The authority found no suppression of the spares' presence and accepted the importer's explanation of intending to file a separate Bill of Entry for the spares.5. After thorough consideration, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to vacate the seizure of spares, concluding that the importer did not intend to evade duty and had valid reasons for not including the spares in the initial Bill of Entry. The factual findings supported the importer's claim of intending to pay duty on the spares separately, affirming the legality of the impugned order and dismissing the appeal.