Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. These appeals under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 are against the order dated August 21, 1990 passed by the Cumtoms, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos.C/987-989/89-A arising out of the order dated December 13, 1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dismissing the appeals against the order dated March 7, 1988 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs.

2. The appellants imported Gum Rosin declaring its CIF value at US$ 410 per metric tonne according to the Bill of Entry which was supplied by M/s. China National Native Product and Animal By-products Imports and Exports Corporation. The declaration of the imported goods made by the appellants described it as 'OFF grade Gum Rosin' which was the description of the quality of goods also in the Bill of Entry. It appears that as a result of some intelligence reports gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay that Gum Rosin of standard or superior grades having higher CIF value was being imported and misdeclared as 'OFF grade, the import of the consignments of Gum Rosin covered by the Bill of Entry in the present cases was taken up for detailed investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay. During the course of investigation under supervision of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) representative samples were drawn from these goods and forwarded for test to ascertain the exact grade and quality of the Gum Rosin imported by the appellants. According to the test reports dated 19.11.1987 and 5.12.1987 of the Customs House Laboratory, the imported goods in question was found to be of 'WG' grade confirming the intelligence gathered by the DRI, Bombay. These test reports, therefore, indicated that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) in addition to imposition of penalty on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(i) ....
(ii) to (v) ....

12. We have earlier indicated that the imported goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and this was obvious to the appellants at least when they requested for acquiring possession thereof accepting the laboratory test reports indicating that there was misdeclaration of the goods and agreeing to adjudication on that basis. The declaration that the imported goods were 'OFF' grade Gum Rosin while in fact they were 'WG' grade Gum Rosin was made by the appellants and it was the appellants who had acquired possession and appropriated the goods agreeing to the adjudication being made under the Act on misdeclaration being found. These undisputed facts clearly bring the appellants within the ambit of Section 112 wherein Clause (b) is wide enough to penalise even a person acquiring possession or in any manner dealing with the goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111. The undisputed facts are sufficient to satisfy this requirement. The appellants acquired possession of the goods knowing very well or at least having reason to believe that the imported goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) since they did not dispute the test reports and agreed to adjudication. The further question of also the requirement of definite proof that they knew when they made the declaration that it was a misdeclaration does not arise in the present case for incurring the liability of penalty under Section 112 of the Act on these facts. The dispute raised by the appellants was confined only to liability for penalty and not its quantum.

14. The above discussion makes it clear that the misdeclaration of the goods imported by the appellants rendered it liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and attracted Section 112 for imposition of penalty for improper importation of goods on the appellants on adjudication made under Section 122 giving the appellants option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation, to which they readily agreed accepting the laboratory test reports which proved the misdeclaration of the imported goods and attracted these provisions for adjudication of confiscation and penalty. There is no infirmity in the Tribunal's order.