Customs misdeclaration and section 28 demand limits: importer liability, DRI competence, broker penalty, and evidentiary safeguards

Mis-declaration in the bill of entry was attributed to the importer, who remained responsible for truthful and complete customs declarations even if the overseas supplier sent different goods. A demand under section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be sustained for goods not yet cleared for home consumption, and the DRI-issued show cause notice was invalid where the officer was not the proper officer for section 28 purposes. Penalty on the Customs Broker under section 112(a) was not supportable absent material showing knowledge, participation, or liability to confiscation. Confiscation and importer penalties based on recorded statements required compliance with section 138B and natural justice; those matters were remanded for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods were mis-declared in the bill of entry and whether the importer could avoid responsibility by asserting that the overseas supplier sent wrong goods; (ii) whether a demand under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained in respect of goods not yet cleared for home consumption and goods seized from the importer's shop, and whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was competent to issue the show cause notice; (iii) whether penalty on the Customs Broker under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was valid; (iv) whether the confiscation of goods and penalties on the importer could be sustained without compliance with section 138B and the requirements of natural justice.

Issue: (i) Whether the goods were mis-declared in the bill of entry and whether the importer could avoid responsibility by asserting that the overseas supplier sent wrong goods.

Analysis: The imported goods were found, on examination, to differ from the declaration as to quality, quantity and description. The bill of entry was filed on the basis of documents supplied by the importer, and the importer is statutorily required to make a truthful and complete declaration and to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information furnished. The legal responsibility for the import declaration rested on the importer, and the plea that the foreign supplier sent different goods could not displace that obligation.

Conclusion: The goods were mis-declared, and the importer remained responsible for the false declaration.

Issue: (ii) Whether a demand under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be sustained in respect of goods not yet cleared for home consumption and goods seized from the importer's shop, and whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was competent to issue the show cause notice.

Analysis: A demand under section 28 is a post-assessment recovery mechanism that operates after clearance for home consumption and is in the nature of a review of the earlier assessment. Accordingly, a demand for goods not yet cleared was premature. As regards the goods already cleared and found in the shop, the demand could be issued only by the proper officer who made the original assessment or his successor in office. The show cause notice issued by the DRI officer was held invalid in the absence of authority as the proper officer for section 28 purposes.

Conclusion: The demand under section 28(4) for goods not yet cleared was not sustainable, and the demand for the shop-seized goods was also not sustainable because the DRI officer was not the proper officer competent to issue it.

Issue: (iii) Whether penalty on the Customs Broker under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 was valid.

Analysis: The allegation against the Customs Broker was confined to non-discharge of obligations under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations. Such a lapse, even if assumed, did not establish liability under section 112(a), which requires conduct rendering the goods liable to confiscation. No material showed knowledge, participation, or interest in the mis-declaration.

Conclusion: The penalty on the Customs Broker was invalid.

Issue: (iv) Whether the confiscation of goods and penalties on the importer could be sustained without compliance with section 138B and the requirements of natural justice.

Analysis: The confiscation and penalty findings rested on statements recorded during investigation. Where such statements are relied upon, the statutory safeguards governing their evidentiary use must be followed, and the affected party must receive a reasonable opportunity in accordance with natural justice. Since the record did not show compliance with those safeguards, the matter required reconsideration by the original authority.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalties on the importer were remanded for fresh adjudication after compliance with section 138B and natural justice.

Final Conclusion: Substantial relief was granted by setting aside the duty demands and the Customs Broker's penalty, while the confiscation and importer-related penalties were sent back for fresh decision-making on a lawful evidentiary basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand under section 28 can be made only by the proper officer after clearance for home consumption, and confiscation or penalty based on relied-upon statements must comply with the statutory safeguards governing their admissibility and the requirement of a fair hearing.

---