2018 (11) TMI 1764

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... examination of 20% of the import goods. One of the containers under the said Bill of Entry was on CSD hold and as per the AC/Docks' order, the goods were examined 100% after de-stuffing the goods. On examination, it was found that only few pallets of declared items were stuffed in the subject container and the remaining cargo was found to be undeclared consumer goods. Hence, as per the order of the AC/Docks all the three containers were examined and in all the three containers along with the declared cargo consumer goods like Foam Plates, Spoons, cups, glasses, Bottles, Soft toys, etc., were found which were not declared by the appellant. The total weight found during the examination was 38.910 MTs instead of 37.44 MTs declared in the Bill of Entry. 2.2 Appellant vide their letter dated 8-5-2018 informed that the material imported was not as per their order to M/s. GDB International INC. The supplier M/s. GDB International INC vide their letter dated 21-4-2018 had informed the appellant that, materials which were left over items of many different types of material that has no value in USA and were lying in their warehouse since many years were wrongly exported to India. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med the appellant that the goods have been wrongly sent due to the error committed by its staff and informed that he will take steps to claim the goods for re-export. The supplier vide their letter dated 21-4-2018 addressed to Additional Commissioner of Customs, JNCH and to Additional Commissioner, SIIB informed about the mistake/error committed by their staff and also undertook to take back the goods. The appellant vide letter dated 8-5-2018 placed the reply of the supplier and requested for re-export of the goods. Appellant again vide their letter dated 9-5-2018 requested for allowing urgent re-export of the goods to the supplier. The appellant states that the officials of GDB International Inc., personally visited the office of the Additional Commissioner of Customs Group 2HK on 23-5-2018 and apprised about the mistake committed by them while despatching the goods and requested re-export of the goods back to them. The supplier had also addressed letter dated 23-5-2018 recording their attendance and appearance. The appellant states that vide letter dated 23-5-2018, addressed to the Commissioner of Customs, SIIB placed the above facts on record and also informed that request for r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inquished its title over the goods and is not claiming the same. The valuation issue is also being challenged, though, the goods are not being claimed by the appellant. (vii)  Appellant relies upon the decision in the case of Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). In the present case, the supplier has admitted its fault and the same fault cannot be fastened upon the appellant. (viii) Appellant submits that the ground rent and detention charges accrued is approximately Rs. 61.5 lakh till filing of the appeal. The redemption fine has been imposed without any calculation/or survey/or expert opinion as to how and on what basis the severe and harsh redemption fine has been imposed. Relied upon the following case laws : (a)      1999 (106) E.L.T. 456 (T) in the case of Shankar Trading Company v. CC (Appeals), Trichy (b)      1997 (94) E.L.T. 217 in the case of CC, Calcutta v. Star Enterprises (c)      2004 (168) E.L.T. 72 (Tri.-Chennai) in the case of Opus Asia Technologies v. CC, Chennai. (ix)   Appellant submits th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant that the goods have been wrongly sent due to the error committed by their staff and the supplier undertook to take back the goods. 9. The appellant submits that the representative of the overseas supplier M/s. GDB International Inc. personally met the Original Authority and the Additional Commissioner, SIIB and informed about the mistake on their part while dispatching the goods. Page 23 of the appeal paper book is copy of letter dated 21-4-2018 (received stamp 26-4-2018) addressed by the supplier M/s. GDB International Inc. to the Additional Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, NSI, Gr. 2HK, wherein they mentioned that the undeclared goods were loaded by their staff carelessly in night shift warehouse, that such mistake never happened from their side in the past 22 years of doing business with India and that they will bring back these three containers to USA. Page 24 of the appeal paper book is copy of the letter dated 21-4-2018 (received stamp 27-4-2018) addressed by the supplier GDB International Inc. to Additional Commissioner, JNCH (SIIB)(I), wherein similar facts are mentioned. Page 27 of the appeal paper book is copy of the letter dated 23-5-2018 written by Howard R. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....invited the appellant to utilise the DPD facility. 11. The appellant submits that the ground rent and detention charges accrued is approximately Rs. 61.5 Lacs. The appellant submits that it has not claimed the goods and the supplier has relinquished the title of the imported goods due to heavy ground rent and detention charges. In the letter dated 27-8-2018 addressed by the supplier to the appellant (copy at page 45 of appeal paper book), it is mentioned that the authorities took over 4 months to address the problem which has resulted in heavy ground rent and detention charges; that it would not be viable for them to bring back the goods as they have already incurred heavy losses; that they are left with no choice but to relinquish their title to goods over to the customs department since they are the owner of the goods and they assured that payment of invoice value of the shipment would be remitted back to the bank account of the appellant. This letter also indicates that the supplier is showing itself to be the owner of the goods. During hearing the appellant submitted that it received the money paid for the consignment back from the supplier. All the above circumstances ....