Decided on January 02,2015

C.C. Delhi -Iii Appellant
Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd. Respondents


Manmohan Singh, Member (T) - (1.)THE Department has come in appeal against Order -in -appeal passed by the Commissioner (appeal) 382 -SVS/GGN -2012 dated 28/09/2012 wherein Commissioner (appeal) dropped the proceedings against the respondents holding that allegation of mis -declaration of value as well as quantity could not be sustained. He consequently dropped confiscation and imposition of penalty.
(2.)AGGRIEVED by Commissioner (appeal)'s order on review order No. 202014 dated 20/1/2014, Revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that Commissioner (appeal) failed to appreciate the fact that details and description of the goods were available to the importer before arrival of the goods. The difference in quantity could not be detected by them. It has also been stated that there was a huge difference in amount of duty payable and they should have come forward for amendment in Bill of Entry before the examination of goods, which was not done. On that ground, Revenue also taken the ground that though invoice was filed along with Bill of Entry but Commissioner (appeal) failed to appreciate the fact. Invoice also contained the value which should have been correctly declared in the Bill of Entry.
Ld. DR reiterated the grounds of appeal taken by the Department and submitted that there has been a mis -declaration on the part of the respondent as despite availability of invoice and packing list, they could not detect the wrong declaration at the time of filing of Bill of Entry. However, he did not dispute the contents of invoice, Bill of Entry and packing list. He referred that under section 46(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, it is the responsibility of the importers to give declaration that the contents in the Bill of Entry were true to their knowledge and requested for imposition of penalty. He also furnished copies of Bill of Entry, invoice and packing list for perusal of the Bench.

(3.)ON the other hand, ld. Counsel of the respondents submitted that there was a mistake in describing the quantity of their import product which occurred due to ignorance of the staff of the CHA as they could not co -relate the documents and by mistake shown the quantity of 33.38 square meters instead of the actual quantity described of the invoice and the packing list, i.e., 33,376/ - square meter. He also pointed out that due to different connotation used in India and Europe systems and lack of knowledge of the CHS Staff regarding these connotations led to the wrong mentioning of the quantity. However, their bonafide were clear as all correct information was contained in invoice and packing list which was filed along with documents before the Customs Department. He also mentioned that they have been regular importers and have been importing their products at Nava Sheva Port in Mumbai and have been discharging duties to the tune of crores over a year. He also referred to Commissioner (appeal)'s Order -in -appeal where he has appreciated the facts and held that there could be no malafide intention to defraud the Revenue.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.