Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vii) The description of the goods in the 7 bills of entry mentioned in sub-para (i) hereinabove as electronic components amounted to mis-declaration since the goods imported were electronic consumer goods in SKD condition.

(viii) Examination reports of all the 10 bills of Entry showed that excess quantities over and above the declared quantities had been imported and the declared value thereof was much less than the actual value.

(ix) By the aforesaid mis-declaration of description, quantity and value of the goods, the importers attempted to evade customs duty to the tune of Rs. 90,70,021.00, vide details given in paragraph 32 of the impugned order.

5. After considering the replies to the show cause notice filed by the appellants and after giving personal hearing, the Collector of Customs, Madras, vide the impugned order, held that Shri Jatinder Uppal imported the consumer goods in SKD condition in all the 10 bills of entry misdeclaring them as components. He also held that the quantity and value of the goods were mis-declared, except the value of Video Magnetic Tapes. He held mat three firms, viz., M/s. Shivam Electronics, M/s. Monica Enterprises and M/s. Cosmopolitan Electronics were not functionally existing in the addresses mentioned in the bills of entry. He, therefore, held that the import of the goods was prohibited under Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Import (Control) Order, 1955 issued thereunder. He held that the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 11 1(d), (I) & (in) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also held that Jatinder Uppal had engineered the import of the consignments covered by all 10 bills of entry and he was liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, he passed the following orders;

11. The third ground on which the goods were confiscated is mis-declaration of description, quantity and value of the goods. The learned Consultant has denied the charge of misdeclaration of the description of the goods. According to him, the appellants imported components only and not complete articles. As regards the excess goods, he has explained the position as in the preceding paragraph and has argued that the appellants should not be held guilty of the charge of mis-declaration of quantity since they declared the quantity in the bills of entry on the basis of the suppliers' invoices. After they came to know the fact of excess shipment through telex referred to supra, they brought the matter to the notice of the Assistant Collector and volunteered to pay duly on the supplementary bills of entry for which they sought permission of the Assistant Collector of Customs. Therefore, they acted bona fide. So far as the misdeclaration of value is concerned, the learned Consultant has argued that the allegation of mis-declaration of value has two parts, viz., (1) due to customs authorities holding that complete articles were imported and not the component parts and hence, the value of the goods is much higher than the declared value. Secondly, the value of the goods which were wrongly shipped in excess were not originally declared by the appellants. So far as the first part is concerned, the learned Consultant has denied the allegation. So far as the second part is concerned, he has stated that the appellants declared the value in the bills of entry on the basis of the documents sent by the foreign suppliers. As soon as they came to know about the shipment of the excess goods, they brought it to the notice of the Assistant Collector. Therefore, they should not be charged for mis-declaration of value of the goods.