Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Dhl Express(I) Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Csi Airport, ... on 13 September, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. C/967/12-MUM
[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. 68/Mumbai-III/2012 dtd. 29/6/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai -Zone III]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)
=======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
M/s. DHL Express(I) Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellants
VS
Commissioner of Customs, CSI Airport, Mumbai
:
Respondent
Appearance
None for the Appellant
Shri. Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 13/09/2014
Date of decision 13/09/2014
ORDER NO.
An appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No 68/Mumbai-III/2012 dtd. 29/6/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai -Zone III, wherein imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was upheld under section 112(a) of Customs Act 1962. The fact of the case is that an importer, M/s. Virgo Valves and Controls Ltd. had filed form V Bill of Entry No 43250 dated 17/12/2009 for clearance of Valves at declared assessable value Rs. 2,20,311/-and weight 70 kgs. However, in regular bill of entry the gross weight was declared as 114.30 kgs. On examination the net weight was found to be 91.00 kgs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt Ltd mis-declared the weight of imported goods while filing CBE dated 17/12/2009. Due to mis-declaration on the part of courier agency the goods were confiscated under section 111(m) of Customs Act 1962. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has imposed under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. When the matter was called upon none appeared on behalf of the appellant nor even any request for adjournment.
2. Ld Superintendent (A.R.) appeared on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the finding of the impugned order. He submits that misdeclaration of weight by M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt Ltd while filing the bill of entry is not under dispute. Moreover, the mistake was accepted by the appellant. Therefore, impugned order may be upheld and appeal be dismissed.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the Revenue and also carefully considered the ground of appeal made by the appellant in the appeal memo.
4. The fact of misdeclaration of weight of imported goods that is 70 kgs as against the gross weight 114.30 kgs(Net weight 91 kgs) is not under dispute, rather it was accepted by the appellant. Though, the appellant submitted that it is a systemic error and not intentional, but on perusal of the record it is coming out very clearly that despite having correct weight in the documents related thereof with the courier company, they have declared 70 kgs in the bill of entry filed by them on behalf of the importer. I have also gone through regulation 2 (2)(b) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 which stipulates that said regulation shall not apply to the goods where the weight of individual package exceeds 70 kgs, it clearly shows malafide on the part of the appellant that since, weight of the consignment was 114.30 kgs just with the intention to be fitting into the aforesaid provisions they have mis-declared the weight 70 kgs. Therefore this mistake cannot be treated as a unintentional. I am fully convinced with both the lower authorities in imposition of penalty on the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated in court) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 4