2018 (6) TMI 533

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bills of Entry and made declarations about the imported goods being garment accessories, unbranded mobile phone accessories, footwear accessories etc. However, on the DRI examination it was found that out of 156 cartons, 49 cartons containing pen drives cosmetics, drones, branded smart phones etc. were not declared by the appellant M/s Excel Enterprises. In the appeal filed by M/s S.G. International the misdeclared items were iPhone, branded mobile accessories, branded internal hard disk, memory cards, sports shoes of Nike, Adidas etc. The non-declared cartons were around 69 out of 177 cartons, so imported by the said appellant. 3. The appellant took a stand that such goods were sent by the foreign Chinese supplier, by mistake. Inasmuch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Sh. Amardeep was only a financer of the goods and it is the appellant, who hold the IEC no. and filed Bills of Entry. As per the Customs law, one who files the Bills of Entry is the importer and the financer has no role to be examined by the Customs. As regards the non-declaration of the goods, both the importers admitted that whole consignment were not declared to the Customs. Further, ld. Advocate admits that some of the goods may be liable to absolute confiscation whereas the majority of the goods are required to be released on payment of redemption fine, in terms of provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act. As such, he submits that there was no justification for not releasing the entire goods. He also submits that the Bills of Entry....