M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) This revision petition under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, is directed against an order dated July 22, 1995, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra, whereby it partly allowed the dealers' Second Appeal No. 51 of 1994 for the assessment year 1987-88 and reduced the penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) from Rs. 16,840 to Rs. 2,000. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal and the learned Standing Counsel, Sri R. D. Gupta. The facts of the case are that three dealers of silver ornaments at Rajkot in Gujarat, namely, M/s. Raghubir Meenawala, Rajendra Kumar and D. A. Soni sent four parcels of silver ornaments to three persons at Agra. Raghubir Meenawala sent a post parcel No. 661 addressed to Shri F. C. Jain Dalal, Agra; Rajendra Kumar despatched post parcel No. 285 to Shri Pradeep Kumar and D. A. Soni sent two post parcels Nos. 91 and 94 to Ramesh Chandra Sharaff and H. C. Agarwal, respectively. After their arrival at Agra Post Office, the said parcels were seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi. The consignees aforesaid refused to take delivery of the goods. Thereafter the consignors contacted the present revisionist who agreed to take delivery of the goods from the Central excise authorities at Agra and while carrying the goods from the office of the Central excise authorities to his place of business the Trade Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, intercepted him. At that time the revisionist was carrying form 31 in respect of those goods in which it mentioned itself to be the importer of those goods. Those forms were not got endorsed in accordance with section 28-A of the Act and, therefore, the goods were seized and ultimately a penalty of Rs. 16,840 was imposed. The first appeal was dismissed. On second appeal the Tribunal held that the dealer committed a technical breach as it did not get form 31 endorsed by the trade tax authorities before taking the delivery thereof from the Central excise authorities. It, therefore, reduced the penalty from Rs. 16,840 to Rs. 2,000. It was contended before the Tribunal that the revisionist was not an importer of the goods and, therefore, no penalty can be levied on it. In the present revision petition the only question canvassed is as to whether in the circumstances of the case the revisionist can be said to have imported or otherwise received into the State the aforesaid goods in contravention of provisions of section 28-A of the Act. The Tribunal's finding on the factual aspect of the case is recorded in paragraph 8 of its order, as under : " It is true that copies of bill No. 5 dated November 11, 1987, bill No. 6 dated November 18, 1987, bill No. 317 dated November 15, 1987 and bill No. 4 dated November 11, 1987 (in Gujarati script of course understandable with difficulty), which bear the name of the different purchasers of Agra stand in testimony of the fact that the purchaser of the disputed ornaments was not the appellant. It is also true that the show cause notice under section 13-A issued by the S. T. O. (Mobile Squad) on January 15, 1988, also contains the details and description of the parcels, in which the disputed silver ornaments were sent to Agra. It is also true that the names mentioned in the show cause notice of the consignees of those goods at Agra also do not include the name of the appellant. Besides that the letters of information (Paper Nos. 10, 19 and 5) dated January 6, 1988, by Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, also stand the testimony of the fact that the consignee of the disputed goods at Agra was not the appellant, but (1) F. C. Jain Dalal, Kinari Bazar, Agra, (2) Ramesh Chand Sarraf, 14/78, Phuwara, Agra and Sri H. C. Agarwala, Chaubeji Ka Phatak, Agra, (3) Sri Pradeep Kumar, H. No. 1/63, Johni Bazar, Agra. It is also true that on the basis of this overwhelming evidence by no stretch of imagination, it can be said and held that the disputed goods were imported by the appellant or against his order, the goods were sent from consignors of Rajkot to Agra. But at the same time, the sight cannot be lost of the fact that form 31 which were produced before the S. T. O. (STB), Agra, in respect of the disputed goods were issued by the appellant, and which had no endorsement of the S. T. O. , as envisaged under section 28-A, though in presence of the letters of information, noted above, there can be no iota of suspicion or any difficulty in holding that the release of these disputed goods must have been or was secured by the dealers of Rajkot at Agra from the Inspector, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, on January 15, 1988 as per the requirement of those letters. Now the question, to which we are posed here is that in spite of its being proved that the disputed goods were not sent by the dealers of Rajkot to Agra in pursuance of any purchase order by the appellant or they were not imported as such in furtherance of his order yet by giving form 31 in respect of those disputed goods, the appellant can be termed and held as the importer of those goods and is liable to stand to explain the breach of non-endorsement of form 31 under section 28-A of the Trade Tax Act. " The Tribunal also observed that no sooner the appellant issued form 31 in regard to the disputed goods, than he turned to be the importer of the goods and, therefore, was liable to give form 31 duly endorsed. A perusal of the above finding would show that it was not the dealer-revisionist at whose instance the post parcels containing the silver ornaments arrived into the State of U. P. at Agra. Section 28-A (1) requires that any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the importer") who intends to bring, import or otherwise receive, into the State from any place without the State, any goods liable to tax under this Act. . . . . shall obtain the prescribed form of declaration upon payment of the prescribed fee. Sub-section (3) of section 28-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, provides that - " (3) Where such goods are consigned by rail, river, air or post the importer shall not - (a) obtain or cause to be obtained delivery thereof unless he furnished or causes to be furnished to such officer as may be authorised in this behalf by the State Government, a declaration in the prescribed form in duplicate duly filled in and signed by him for endorsement by such officer; or (b) after taking delivery, carry the goods away or cause the goods to be carried away from the railway station, steamer or boat station, airport or post office, as the case may be, unless a copy of the declaration duly endorsed by such officer is carried with the goods. " The import of the goods into the State was completed when they arrived at the respective post office at Agra and it has not been established that till that time the revisionist had any connection with the goods. Therefore, when the goods arrived at the respective post office at Agra and import was completed the revisionist was not a person who intended to bring, import or otherwise receive into the State the said goods. The revisionist came into the picture after a few weeks after the excise authorities had issued notice dated January 6, 1988 to the consignors and the consignees, mentioned above, did not take delivery of the goods from the excise authorities. The revisionist's contention that after the aforesaid events, the consignors contacted the revisionist and requested that the goods in question be taken delivery of by the revisionist and be sold as a commission agent of the consignors, has been accepted by the Tribunal. The revisionist took delivery of the goods not from the transporters and, therefore, sub-section (3) of section 28-A of the Act was not applicable. The Tribunal's observation that simply because the dealer furnished form 31 it becomes an importer is not legally sustainable. As is evident from the facts of the case the dealer having not intended to bring import or otherwise received into the State of U. P. the goods in question, cannot be treated as an importer. It is an importer who was obliged to furnish form 31. A person who by mistake or under some misconception furnished form 31 cannot become an importer by that mistake. For the above reasons the revisionist had no obligation to comply with the requirement of section 28-A and no penalty could be levied on it under section 15-A (1) (0) of the Act. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and modifying the Tribunal's order under revision, it is ordered that the revisionist's second appeal stands fully allowed and the penalty stands quashed in its entirety. The revisionist shall get its cost which I assess at Rs. 1,000. A certified copy of this order be sent to the Trade Tax Tribunal in terms of section 11 (8) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act. Petition allowed. .;