2022 (2) TMI 262 - AT - Customs

Tribunal partially upholds Appeal for excess goods confiscation but sets aside penalties for correctly declared goods.

Shri Dilip Sarkar Proprietor of M/s Shree Ashutosh Exports and Shri Uttam Biswas Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata

Shri Dilip Sarkar Proprietor of M/s Shree Ashutosh Exports and Shri Uttam Biswas Versus Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata - TMI Issues:1. Confiscation of goods imported in excess of declared quantity under Customs Act, 1962.2. Imposition of penalties on importer, customs broker, and vehicle owner.3. Application of South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) exemption on imported goods.4. Justification of confiscation and penalties based on misdeclaration and excess quantity.5. Legal provisions under Sections 111(e) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The Appellant imported goods in excess of the declared quantity, leading to confiscation under Sections 111(e) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Adjudicating authority imposed penalties and demanded customs duty on the entire consignment, disregarding the SAFTA Certificate exemption. The Appellant argued for action only on the excess goods, maintaining that the declared goods covered by SAFTA should be exempt from confiscation and penalties.2. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed penalties on the importer, customs broker, and vehicle owner. The Appellant contested the penalties, stating that the misdeclaration was not intentional, and the customs broker and vehicle owner were not fully aware of the excess quantity loaded in the consignment.3. The SAFTA Certificate exemption was crucial in determining the applicability of duty on the imported goods. The Adjudicating authority denied the exemption for the entire consignment, despite the majority of goods being covered by the SAFTA Certificate. The Appellant argued for setting aside the demands and penalties for the goods correctly declared and covered by the SAFTA Certificate.4. Legal provisions under Sections 111(e) and 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962 were analyzed to determine the confiscation of goods. The Tribunal found that only the excess goods, not the entire consignment, were liable for confiscation. The Adjudicating authority's decision to deny the exemption certificate for the entire consignment was deemed unsupported by legal provisions, leading to a reduction in demands and penalties.5. The Tribunal partially allowed the Appeal, upholding the confiscation of excess goods, while setting aside the confiscation and penalties for the correctly declared goods covered by the SAFTA Certificate. Penalties imposed on the customs broker and vehicle owner were also set aside, emphasizing the lack of evidence against them and the owner's lack of personal knowledge regarding the misdeclaration.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the legal reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision.