M/S. Righill Electrics Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E., Indore
- CitationAppeal No.C/31/2011-CU[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The mis-declaration of goods in a Bill of Entry is established where the examined consignment contains goods not declared in that Bill of Entry, and such mis-declaration renders the undeclared goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and to penalty under Section 112, notwithstanding that the importer later files a fresh Bill of Entry for those goods after the mis-declaration is detected. Redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 may be imposed on confiscated goods even where the goods were provisionally released to the importer on execution of a provisional release bond and are no longer physically available with the Revenue, following the principle laid down in Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Appeal No.C/31/2011-CU[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.IND/308/2010, dated 29.09.2010 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Indore]
M/s. Righill Electrics Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Indore Respondents
Appearance
None - for the appellants
Ms. Ranjana Jha, DR - for the respondents
CORAM: Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
Final Order No.51377/2015, dated 10.04.2015
Per Mr. R.K. Singh :
Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal No.IND/308/2010, dated 29.09.2010, which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 29.03.2010 in terms of which 15 power transistors valued at Rs.2,00,415/- were confiscated under Section 111of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed to be redeemed on fine of Rs.10,000/- and penalty of Rs.5,000/- was also imposed under Section 112 of the Act. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants filed Bill of Entry, dated 23.10.2007 for goods imported in two boxes declaring 32 numbers of stainless steel 304 diamond plates. On examination of the consignment in addition to the declared goods, 15 power transistors were also found, which had not been declared. After the detection they tried to regularise it by filing another Bill of Entry on 31.10.2007 for the said power transistors. The adjudicating authority held that the impugned goods (namely 15 power transistors) were mis-declared and hence the said confiscation, fine and penalty.
2. Nobody appeared for hearing on behalf of the appellants but they sent a letter that the matter may be decided on merits. The appellants in the appeal essentially contended that they were not aware that the consignment also contained the impugned 15 power transistors and that it was a mistake of DHL and the moment they came to know they filed Bill of Entry therefor. They also contended that as the goods were not available with the Department, the redemption fine could not be imposed. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand states that they filed second Bill of Entry only after the mis-declaration was detected and therefore the impugned order is clearly sustainable. She referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Weston Components Ltd. Vs. CC, New Delhi [2000 (115) ELT 278 (SC)], wherein it was essentially held that the redemption fine is imposable even after the release of goods on execution of bond. She also cited the judgement of Madras High Court in the case of Rajguhan Exports & Imports Vs. CC, Chennai [2014 (307) ELT 47 (Mad.)], wherein it was held that the ground of mistake by foreign supplier was an after-thought and therefore not acceptable.
3. I have perused the records and considered submissions of ld. Departmental Representative. It clearly comes out from the documents that in the Bill of Entry filed on 23.10.2007 only 32 numbers of stainless steel diamond plates were declared, while on examination the impugned goods namely 15 power transistors were also found and therefore mis-declaration is clearly established and consequently confiscation and penalty ordered by the primary adjudicating authority and confirmed by the first appellate authority are clearly sustainable. Merely because the appellants filed the second Bill of Entry for the impugned goods on detection of mis-declaration does not absolve them of the mis-declaration. The contention that the goods were not available with Revenue and therefore redemption fine cannot be imposed is also untenable in the light of the Supreme Court judgement in the case of Weston Components Ltd. (supra) as the impugned goods had been provisionally released on execution of a provisional release bond.
4. In the light of the foregoing, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and therefore the appeal is dismissed.
(R.K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
SSK
-3-
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free