Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- This human error is further corroborated by multiple objective factors:

a. The items constitute merely 0.26% of the total value of the consignment (Rs. 17,507.51 out of a total value of Rs. 67,34,868) b. These items are freely importable without any restrictions or BIS certifications c. The Appellant and the supplier immediately acknowledged the mistake and relinquished their title to these items upon discovery d. The extra carton is not mentioned in the Bill of Lading No. ONCM/CHQ/CCU/010077 dated 30.11.2023 or Packing List e. The consignment involved 1240 cartons in 2 x 40' containers, making it easy for a single carton to be mistakenly included f. There would be no logical reason to deliberately smuggle 4 pieces of Engine Assembly and 5 pieces of Storage Battery which are freely importable items g. The Appellant has paid appropriate duty on the declared goods and has not attempted to evade any duty

5,000/- under Section 125 and penalty of Rs. 17,508/- under Section 112(a)(i) & 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act.

16. The appellant has corroborated his argument about the human error with the factors like :

 The items constitute merely 0.26% of the total value of the consignment (Rs. 17,507.51 out of a total value of Rs.67,34,868/-)  These items are freely importable without any restrictions or BIS certifications  The Appellant and the supplier immediately acknowledged the mistake and relinquished their title to these items upon discovery  There would be no logical reason to deliberately smuggle 4 pieces of Engine Assembly and 5 pieces of Storage Battery which are freely importable items

Customs Appeal No. 75473 of 2025

19. In view of the above discussions, we take the considered view that extra one carton is purely on account of human error. We hold that the appellants are not allowed to relinquish the goods found in the one extra carton. They are required to pay the requisite Customs Duty and clear the same. Considering the value of the goods, the Redemption Fine is modified to Rs.2000.

20. We next take up the issue of the description of goods in respect of Sl No.28, 68 & 122. We find that the Chartered Engineer in his first Report No. CER/AVSE-BJ/2023-24/AV-001 dated 12.02.2024 subscribed to the view that the goods are "Invertor". We find from the chronological Table given above that the appellant received a letter on 2.8.2024 from the overseas exporter stating that in respect of these three items, instead of giving the description as „Invertor Components', the exporter had given the description as "Invertor". The appellant thereafter on 6.8.2024, filed their letter before Additional Commissioner of Customs (SIIB) seeking rectification of certain items mentioned in the Bill of Entry as per supplier confirmation letter dated 02.08.2024. The Chartered Engineer issued clarification certificate stating items at Sl. Nos. 28, 68 & 122 were "INVERTER COMPONENTS". The relevant documents are extracted below:

31. To summarize :

(a) In respect of the extra one carton, it is held that the excess carton‟s presence is on account of human error. The appellant is required to pay the requisite Customs Duty and clear the same after paying Redemption Fine of Rs.2000. Penalty is set aside

(b) In respect of the disputed description, we hold that the goods in question are "Invertor Components" only. Hence no Redemption Fine or any penalty is required to be paid by the appellant.