Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Bel India Trade Pvt. Ltd. vs Cc on 28 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(118)ECC444, 2007ECR444(TRI.-DELHI), 2007(216)ELT441(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice President
1. Heard both sides
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs whereby the imported goods were confiscated on the ground of mis-declaration or description of goods and allowed to release of the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. Two lakhs and penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of Customs Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant made import of Eland Bicycle in CKD condition and filed Bill of Entry declaring that the goods were of Ghana origin. On verification, it was found that infact the goods were of Chinese origin. After granting the hearing of the appellant, the Commissioner held that as the appellant misdeclared the description of goods, therefore, contravened the provisions of Section 46(4) of Customs Act.
4. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant made import of the goods from Ghana and as per the invoice supplied by the exporter, the goods were shown as Ghana origin and on the basis of the invoice the Bill of Entry was filed. The contention is that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order gave a specific finding that there is no change in duty payable on the goods by mis-declaration of country of origin. The contention is that originally the goods were imported by M/s Eland International Pvt. Ltd., from China was not able to sell the bicycle in Ghana, therefore, the present importer imported the goods into India. The contention is that as there was no mis-declaration in respect of (sic) of goods with intention to evade payment of duty. The origin of goods were mentioned in the Bill of Entry as per the invoice supplied by the exporter, therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation.
5. The contention of the Revenue is that the importer is duty bound to declare all the particulars correctly in the Bill of Entry and he has to sign the declaration that all particulars mentioned in the Bill of Entry are true and correct. As the appellant wrongly mentioned the country of origin, therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation.
6. I find that in this case, the Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order held that there is no change in duty payable on the goods by mis-declaration of country of origin. However, in the order portion, the Commissioner held that appellant had such misdeclared the description of goods, the goods were bicycle in CKD condition and this is not in dispute. The only dispute is whether by mentioning the country of origin, the goods are Ghana origin whereas the goods were actually of Chinese origin, whether the goods become prohibited goods and liable for confiscation. It is well settled law that if the mis-declaration in respect of description of goods, country of origin, value etc. is done to evade payment of duty. In such case the goods are liable for confiscation and importer also is liable for penalty. In the present case, it is not disputed by the Revenue that goods are coming from Ghana and in the invoice the country of origin is Ghana shown by the exporter. As it is admitted fact that by mis-declaring the country of origin, there is no change of duty, therefore, it cannot be said that the mis-declaration is with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside whereby the goods were confiscated and, consequential redemption fine and penalty are also set aside. The appeal is allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)