TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs appeal: Mis-declared goods require confiscation & penalties, not redemption. Uphold regulations.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI Versus SUPREME WOOLLEN MILLS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI Versus SUPREME WOOLLEN MILLS - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 453 (Tribunal) Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, Confiscation of goods, Redemption fine, Validity of import, Duty assessmentThe judgment involves an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs against an appellate order regarding the mis-declaration of imported goods. The respondents imported a consignment of goods declared as premutilated Woollen/Synthetic Rags but were found to contain serviceable garments. The Assistant Collector ordered confiscation of the goods with an option of redemption on payment of a fine. The Collector (Appeals) held that the goods could be cleared after mutilation without any redemption fine, a decision challenged by the Collector of Customs. The issue raised was whether goods can be cleared after mutilation without a redemption fine when mis-declaration is involved.The Collector (Appeals) contended that once goods are cleared after mutilation, redemption fine is not applicable, but this overlooks that goods should be assessed in the condition they are imported. If imported goods are mis-declared and found to contain unauthorized items, confiscation under relevant sections is justified. The Madras High Court judgment cited supports this view, emphasizing that offending goods must be adjudicated upon, and the option to clear after mutilation does not negate the initial mis-declaration. The High Court's ruling also rejects the notion that goods can be released without complying with fines, penalties, and mutilation conditions. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the Department's appeal was allowed.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that mis-declaration of imported goods, especially when unauthorized items are found, warrants confiscation and adjudication. The duty assessment should align with the actual imported condition, and the option to clear goods after mutilation does not absolve the initial mis-declaration. The legal principle upheld is that offending goods must face appropriate consequences, even if redemption options are available, to maintain the integrity of customs regulations and import policies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
