Tribunal reduces penalty for misdeclaration of goods, emphasizes due diligence

The Tribunal set aside the penalty under section 112(b) and reduced the penalty under section 114AA to Rs 50,000 for a logistic service provider penalized under the Customs Act 1962 for misdeclaring a consignment as assorted chappals when it contained mobile spare parts/accessories. Despite finding no malicious intent, the Tribunal held the provider negligent for not verifying the consignment's actual contents, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and accuracy in declarations, even when following importer instructions.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the penalty imposed on the logistic service provider under section 112(b) and section 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 for a consignment declared as assorted chappals but found to contain mobile spare parts/mobile accessories upon inspection.

Summary:

Issue 1: Penalty under section 112(b) and section 114AA

The appellant, a logistic service provider, filed an Import General Manifest (IGM) declaring a consignment as assorted chappals based on the Bill of Lading description. Subsequently, upon inspection, it was discovered that the consignment actually contained mobile spare parts/mobile accessories. The appellant requested an amendment to the IGM as per the importer's instructions. The Department imposed penalties under section 112(b) and section 114AA of the Customs Act 1962. The appellant argued that they were not aware of the actual contents of the container and had acted based on the information available. The appellant's counsel contended that there was no evidence of their involvement in the misdeclaration. However, the Department argued that the appellant had access to information indicating the presence of other items besides chappals in the container during the amendment process. The Tribunal found that while there was no ulterior motive, the appellant's negligence in not verifying the discrepancy in descriptions warranted a penalty. Consequently, the penalty under section 112(b) was set aside, and the penalty under section 114AA was reduced to Rs 50,000.

The judgment highlights the importance of due diligence and verification in declaring consignment contents accurately, even when amendments are requested by importers. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's lack of malicious intent but emphasized the need for vigilance in ensuring consistency between documentation and actual goods.

---