Post parcel declarations govern customs entry; later IEC procurement and paperwork irregularities alone do not justify confiscation or penalty.

For post parcels, the declaration accompanying the parcel operates as the statutory entry, so customs liability cannot be fastened merely because the consignee's paperwork is irregular or an Import Export Code is obtained later. The description of the goods was not materially false, the value matched the invoice, and the goods were freely importable; confiscation was therefore not justified. Penalty for abetment also requires conscious knowledge and participation in the offence, which was not shown against the partners or other noticees. On these facts, confiscation and penalty both failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported post parcels were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act on the grounds of alleged misdeclaration, non-existence of the consignee, backdated partnership documents and later procurement of Import Export Code number; (ii) Whether penalty could be imposed on the partners and the other noticees for alleged aiding and abetting.

Issue (i): Whether the imported post parcels were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act on the grounds of alleged misdeclaration, non-existence of the consignee, backdated partnership documents and later procurement of Import Export Code number.

Analysis: In the case of post parcels, the declaration accompanying the goods is treated as the entry for purposes of the Act, and the importer does not make a declaration in the same manner as in a bill of entry. On the facts, the description "watch modules" was not materially different from "watch movements", the value was declared in accordance with the invoice, and the goods were freely importable. The later issue of the Import Export Code number did not by itself create liability for confiscation. The alleged backdating of the partnership deed and the disputed existence of the firm were held not to affect the importability of the goods or establish a deliberate wrong declaration for customs purposes.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation, and the finding against confiscation was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be imposed on the partners and the other noticees for alleged aiding and abetting.

Analysis: Penalty for abetment requires conscious knowledge of the proposed offence and participation in conduct that furthers it. The evidence did not show that the persons other than the importing partners knew that any backdated document was being used as a cover for a customs offence. Since the goods themselves were not liable to confiscation and the alleged irregularities did not establish the requisite mens rea, the basis for penalty was absent.

Conclusion: Penalty on the partners and the other noticees was not sustainable and was correctly declined.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's order, holding that the post parcels were not liable to confiscation and that no penalty could be imposed on the noticees; the revenue appeals therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For post parcels, the declaration accompanying the parcel is the statutory entry, and liability for confiscation or penalty cannot be fastened merely because the consignee's paperwork is irregular or the Import Export Code is obtained later, absent a materially false declaration or conscious abetment.

---