Cartridge King Pune Vs Commissioner Of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that allegation of mis-declaration and duty demand thereon not sustained as department doesn’t challenged transaction value. Further, importer duly mentioned value of all the imported goods in the invoice. Hence, duty demand not sustained.
Facts- The importer vide bill of entry no. 3361656 dated 23.05.2019 imported assorted parts of cartridges, OPC drums and black toner from China. It is the case of the department that upon 100% examination of the said cargo only twenty three items were declared hence certain assorted parts of various cartridges OPC drums and cardboard boxes were not mentioned in the declaration at the time of import.
Similar allegations of non-declaration of certain items imported have also been levelled by the department in respect of imports made vide Bill of Entry No. 4089851 dated 17.07.2019. The department thus contends that the importer had not declared all the goods imported as required in the terms of section 46 of the Customs Act, and hence the imported goods are liable for the confiscation and accordingly adjudicated the matter.
Conclusion- Held that there is no merit in the claim of the department that certain goods were not declared. The mis-declaration, if any , as the department does not challenge the transaction value at best is a mere omission and no more than a technical offence, and the case of the importer that the value of all imported goods were duly invoiced strongly supports the premise. Thus, there is no case for the department to subject the appellant to any penal consequences. It is further noted from records that quantity of the components corresponding to the empty cartridge said to be not declared were duly specified in the packing list, and so also for the black toner powder contained cardboard cartons. The department has nowhere made out a case that the importer was required to declare separately each and every component of the empty cartridges under import/CKD condition. The fact that there is no duty demand despite alleged mis-declaration completely substantiates the case of the appellant.
