AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....praisement or first check in which the goods are examined first and thereafter the bill of entry is assessed. This method is followed in few cases and this is one such case. The Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch SIIB of the customs house had also placed an alert in the customs EDI system with respect to the same consignment. The SIIB examined the goods and investigated the matter and it found that the quantity of goods actually imported was 21,660 kg against the declared weight of 15,231 kg. The number of the LEDs found were also different from what was declared under bill of entry. 2. The appellant submitted letters dated 27.09.2017 and 05.10.2017, waiving the requirement of show cause notice SCN and personal hearing and prayed that the goods may be released at the earliest. Accepting the prayer, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, ICD TKD, re-assessed the bill of entry and confirmed higher amount of duty. He also confiscated the goods and allowed their redemption on payment of fine and imposed penalties. The operative part of the order is reproduced below: ORDER i. I reject the transaction value of Rs. 40,62,307/- as declared by the importer in resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section can be imposed only when a person knowingly or intentionally makes, signs, or uses, or causes to be made signed or used, any declaration statement or documents which is false or incorrect in any material particular. Since the bill of entry was filed as per the commercial invoice, packing list, bill of lading etc., what was declared in the bill of entry was as per the documents sent by the suppliers. Therefore, importer had not knowingly or intentionally made or signed any false declaration or submission. Therefore, the penalty under section 114AA cannot be invoked. (iii) During the pendency of the adjudication proceedings the appellant had incurred demurrage charges and detention charges which were not considered by the Department while imposing the redemption fine. Therefore, it can be said that the adjudication authority has not considered and arrived at the correct margin of profit while imposing the redemption fine under section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) Further, the goods are themselves not liable for confiscation and, therefore, neither any fine under section 125 nor any penalty under section 112 should have been imposed. 6. Learned a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clare can only be inferred in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is stands to reason and that if the importer ordered certain quantity of the goods about the same quantity will be sent by the supplier. A supplier does not send 42% more goods than was ordered. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant had the intention to mis-declare the quantity of the goods. Maximum penalty imposable under section 114AA is five times value of the goods and in this case, the penalty imposed under section 114AA is only about 11 % of the value of the goods. (ix) For these reasons, the impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference the appeal may be dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. 8. It is undisputed that the appellant filed a bill of entry declared certain goods and on examination, 42% more goods were found by the customs authorities. Learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that the excess quantity was found during first check examination. We find that the law does not distinguish between the first check and the second check. What is important if the appellant made the correct declaration in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to confiscation under section 111(l). The imported goods also did not correspond in value and, therefore, were also liable for confiscation under section 111(m). We, therefore, find no infirmity in the Additional Commissioner confiscating the imported goods and Commissioner (Appeals) upholding such confiscation in the impugned order. 13. Having confiscated the goods worth Rs. 43,42,301/- the Additional Commissioner allowed the redemption on a fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- which is about 10% of the value of the goods. Section 125 of the Act places the restriction that the amount of fine cannot exceed the market value of the goods. In the factual matrix of this case, we find the redemption fine imposed is just and fair. 14. Section 112(a)(ii) provides for penalty on any person who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act, which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. The penalty imposable in case of dutiable goods cannot exceed 10% of duty sought to be evaded. In this case the duty sought to be evaded which was then enhanced by the impugned order is Rs. 2,02,877/- the penalty imposed under section 112 is Rs. 20,000/- which, in th....