Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Customs vs P.K. Sarawgi on 3 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(157)ELT117(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.S. Kang, Member (J)
1. Revenue filed these appeals against the common adjudication order whereby the proceedings initiated against the respondents in respect of misdeclaration of imported goods were dropped.
2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Hindustan Overseas and M/s. B.R. Metal made import of copper wire bars. The allegation against the importers is that they had misdeclared the goods in respect of weight. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents for confiscation of the goods and for imposition of penalty.
3. The Adjudicating Authority after taking into consideration the amendment in IGM which was allowed by the customs authorities held that there was no misdeclaration on the part of the respondents.
4. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents attempted to misdeclare the weight of the copper wire bars and therefore are liable for penal action.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The Adjudicating Authority in para 33 held as under: -
"It is the case of the noticee, on the other hand, that there is no doubt that the IGM did not contain the correct weight of the impugned 4 containers. However, the mistake was subsequently got amended and the amendment was permitted by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Nhava Sheva Port. His order was reviewed and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) remanded the case to the original authority for de novo adjudication. In the de novo order, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs rejected the application for amendment of IGM against when the noticee filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, thereafter set aside the de novo order and allowed amendment. It has since been ascertained from Nhava Sheva Port that the same Order-in-Appeal, allowing amendment of the IGM has since been accepted by the Customs. In the above facts and circumstances, the charges against the noticee obviously lose their substance and the basic foundation. It is a fact that in the Bills of Entry filed at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, the weight of the impugned copper wire bars contained in four containers was correctly declared. By that time, the amendment of IGM was allowed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Port and the said amendment was also carried out. The allegation against the noticee is that the correct declaration of weight in the Bills of Entry was an after thought and their intention to evade duty was also evident from the facts of misdeclaration of weight in the IGM. The above allegation shall not sustain after the amendment of the IGM has been finally allowed by the appellate authority and the said appellate decision has been accepted by the Customs at Nhava Sheva Port vide Order-in-Appeal No. 117/2000, dated 21-9-2000. Thus, in strict law, the misdeclaration is non-est after the amendment of IGM has taken place. The fact re-mains that at ICD Port, there has been no misdeclaration of weight of the impugned goods."
7. Revenue is not disputing the fact that IGM was amended by the Competent Authority in respect of the weight of the consignment and the respondents filed bills of entry as per weight mentioned in the IGM. Amendment of IGM is not challenged by the Revenue Authority. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are rejected.