TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ship of the goods therein. 3. The necessary facts that arise for considerations are that on 15-5-2002, officers of Air Intelligence Unit while screening the post parcels arrived by flight No. SQ-412 detained a package, bearing mail no. 107 weighing 24 Kgs, suspected to contain restricted/prohibited goods. The said package was examined on 16-5-2002, in presence of two witnesses and it was found that it contained a metal box with marks and no. EE-020244642111 and consigned to Shri P. Kumar. The said metal box was found to contain different size of crystal of CUBIC ZIRCONIA of "Favorite" and "Signity" brands. The said contents of the package were declared as "fashion material" and no value was declared. The authorities seized the goods and conducted investigation. During the course of investigation, the consignee of the said goods was summoned and his statements recorded. After recording statement of the consignee (appeal No. C/347/03), a show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the said goods and also for imposition of penalty. The appellant Shri P. Kumar contested the show cause notice on two grounds i.e. that no order was placed for the impugned goods and that he was not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chai Rakchu. Learned Counsel draws our attention to letter written by Thailand National, wherein the Thailand National, informed that the goods landed in India was sent by mistake by his staff and the said goods may be returned back to him by next flight. 6. It is his further submission that provision of Section 111(l) and 111(m) cannot be invoked in this case for the purpose of confiscation of consignment as the said consignment has arrived in India by Post parcel. it is his submission that the issue as regards the mis-declaration of the goods in terms of value and description under the provisions of Section 111(l) and 111(m), in respect of the goods received by post parcel, the issue is decided by the Tribunal in the case of CC, Mumbai v. M. Vasi as reported at 2003 (151) E.L.T. 312 (Tribunal) = 2003 (54) RLT 222 (CEGAT-Mum). 7. As regards the rejection of the ownership of the Thailand National of Appeal No. C/378/03, it is his submission that the Revenue cannot reject the claim of ownership of a person, who is claiming the goods in question. There are no provisions in the Customs Act to reject the ownership of claimant. It is his submission that assuming but not admitting ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is undisputed that the goods "Cubic Zirconia" arrived through post parcel in India. The said invoice declared as goods are of fashion material and the consignor was shown as Mr. Pichai Rakchu, it is also undisputed that the appellant herein had not come to claim the post parcel from the foreign post office. It is also undisputed that the appellant vide letter dated 26-6-2002 informed Mr. Pichai Rakchu as under:- "To Mr. Pichai Rakchu, 16th Floor, Vorawat Bldg., Unit 1603, 849, Silom Road, Bangrak, Bangkok- 10500 Thailand Dear Sir, This is with reference to the consignment of Cubic Zirconia sent to me by EMPS Post Parcel. I am extremely sorry to take delivery of the above said goods. You have informed me that you will send some sample of Fashion material to ascertain the market position; but, I never expected the huge quantity of Cubic Zirconia sent to me through EMS Post Parcel for which I have received a summon from the Preventive Department, Mumbai, Xerox copy enclosed for your information. I therefore request you to write a letter to customs authority, Mumbai and take back the goods paying the necessar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....responsibility of wrong declaration cannot be fastened upon the importer. it would appear that Section 111 of the Act takes cognizance of this situation, Clauses (l) and (m) Section In read as below: "(l) any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under Section 77. (m) any goods which do not correspond (m) in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof or in the case of goods under transhipment, with the declaration for transhipment referred to in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 54." 11. The phrase "entry made under this Act" comes from Section 46. In terms of Section 82 which reads as below no entry is made by the importer. That is why where as special mention is made of Section 77, there was no mention of Section 82 in the two clauses of Section 111. "Section 82. Label or declaration accompanying goods to be treated as entry - In the case of goods imported or exported by post, any label or declaration accomp....