Case Law Details
Caravel Logistics Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Hyderabad)
Introduction: The case of Caravel Logistics Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, adjudicated by CESTAT Hyderabad, revolves around an issue of discrepancies in the description of imported goods in invoices compared to the Bill of Lading. The CESTAT reviewed and lowered the penalty imposed on the appellant for negligence in the verification of import declarations. Importantly, no ulterior motive or malicious intent was found to be present in the case.
Detailed Analysis: Caravel Logistics Pvt Ltd, the appellant, is a logistics service provider specializing in the import and export of goods. The matter pertains to a consignment imported by M/s Great Overseas, for which the appellant filed an Import General Manifest (IGM) on January 31, 2013. In the IGM, the goods were declared as assorted chappals, consistent with the description in the Bill of Lading.
However, in April 2013, the appellant received a request from Mr. M.A. Mujahid, the proprietor of M/s Great Overseas, to amend the IGM’s description and quantity. This amendment process took place while the consignment remained uncleared at the Inland Container Depot (ICD). In July 2023, customs officials conducted an inspection of the consignment and discovered that it contained mobile spare parts and mobile accessories. Subsequently, the consignment, valued at Rs 4,58,25,512, was confiscated, and the option to redeem it upon payment of a redemption fine of Rs 45,00,000 was offered to the importer. Additionally, a penalty was levied on the appellant under sections 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act 1962.
The appellant’s counsel argued that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant was aware of the goods within the container when filing the IGM or the subsequent amendment. The appellant relied solely on the details provided in the Bill of Lading at the time of IGM submission. The counsel maintained that the investigation did not uncover any specific involvement of the appellant in any wrongful act. Therefore, the counsel sought the reduction of the penalties imposed under sections 112(b) and 114AA.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
