2018 (7) TMI 345 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Confiscation of Mis-Declared Goods: Importance of Trade Compliance and Accurate Declarations

M/s. United Telelinks (Bangalore) Ltd., Shri Ram Bharosi Gupta Versus Commissioner of Customs, Patna

M/s. United Telelinks (Bangalore) Ltd., Shri Ram Bharosi Gupta Versus Commissioner of Customs, Patna - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 734 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, application of Indo Nepal Treaty, confiscation of goods, imposition of penaltyMis-declaration of Goods:The case involved the seizure of Karbonn Mobile Phone sets and Tissue Papers by SSB Officers. The appellant claimed the goods were meant for export to Nepal under the Indo Nepal Treaty. The Revenue alleged mis-declaration as the goods were of Third Country origin, prohibited for export under the Treaty. The Adjudicating authority noted that the Exporter followed all customs formalities for export, leading to the dismissal of charges. However, the appellant did not dispute the mis-declaration, leading to the confiscation of the consignment by the Commissioner (Appeals).Application of Indo Nepal Treaty:The appellant argued that the goods were to be exported to Nepal under the provisions of the Indo Nepal Treaty, which prohibits re-exports of goods imported from Third Countries without manufacturing activity. The Adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) differed in their interpretations of the Treaty. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the mis-declaration by the appellant regarding the origin of the goods justified the confiscation and imposition of fines and penalties. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Treaty prevails in case of any conflict with the Foreign Trade Policy.Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty:The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the Mobile consignment and the imposition of redemption fine and penalties on the appellants. It was noted that the appellant did not deny the mis-declaration, justifying the actions taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the penalty imposed on the second appellant, as the authorized signatory, was set aside considering the overall circumstances of the case.This judgment highlights the importance of accurate declaration of goods for export, the application of international treaties in trade matters, and the consequences of mis-declaration in customs procedures. The decision emphasizes the significance of complying with customs regulations and the implications of failing to do so, leading to confiscation and penalties.