1998 (10) TMI 304 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Cuts Penalties 50% for Misdeclaration of Goods

SWIFT SEED INTERNATIONAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

SWIFT SEED INTERNATIONAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 720 (Tribunal) Issues:Import of goods described as 'Amaranthus Seeds' misdeclared as clover seeds, validity of import permits, misdeclaration of goods in Bills of Entry, excessive redemption fine and penalty.Analysis:1. Misdeclaration of Goods:The issue in these appeals revolved around the misdeclaration of goods imported as 'Amaranthus Seeds' when they were actually clover seeds. The Commissioner of Customs found that the appellants had obtained import permits for vegetable seeds but were trying to clear clover seeds under the guise of Amaranthus Seeds. This misdeclaration led to the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, and imposition of fines and penalties.2. Validity of Import Permits:The appellants admitted that the import was not covered by the permits they produced. The Plant and Quarantine Deputy Director confirmed that the consignments were not covered by the import permits, leading to the sustainability of charges against the appellants. Despite arguments by the Chartered Accountant representing the appellants, the permits were deemed invalid for the goods imported, supporting the department's case.3. Misdeclaration in Bills of Entry:The Chartered Accountant representing the appellants argued that there was no intention to avail of exemptions meant for vegetable seeds, citing the classification of goods under a specific sub-heading for clover seeds. However, the Bills of Entry did not claim any exemption for vegetable seeds, weakening the misdeclaration charge based on extenuating circumstances.4. Excessive Redemption Fine and Penalty:The Commissioner imposed high redemption fines and penalties on the appellants, which the Chartered Accountant argued were excessive compared to the profits earned from the imports. The Tribunal acknowledged the disparity and reduced both the fine on goods and penalties on the appellants by 50% in all three cases, considering the extenuating circumstances and financial impact on the appellants.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that while there were misdeclarations and unauthorized imports, certain extenuating circumstances and discrepancies in the documentation warranted a reduction in fines and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appeals were disposed of with a reduction in fines and penalties by 50%, providing consequential relief to the appellants in accordance with the law.