Case Law Details
Callmate India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT finds that there is no case of deliberate mis-declaration made out on the part of the Appellant importer. The Bill of Entry had been filed as per the packing list and Bill of Lading. Further, the Shipper/Exporter have accepted their mistake, there being error at the time of packing the goods at their end. This cogent explanation has not been found to be untrue. I, further take note that the Appellant had already been suffered financial loss at the end paid for the consignment to the Shipper.
In view of above CESTAT set aside the penalty imposed under Section 112a of the Customs Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The Appellant is in importer/trader having IEC number. They file Bill of Entry No. 2986717 dated 17/03/2011 through their CHA Mr. Pradeep Kumar Parashar declaring the goods to be conversion for telecommunication, travel charger for mobile phone-unbranded and universal pouches for mobile phone (unbranded). The Bill of Entry was assessed and marked for examination by SIIB on first check basis. The goods were initially examined on 28/03/2011 and thereafter the final examination on 04/04/2011. On examination, it was found that there is mismatch with regard to the quantity and also contained branded goods being Nokia Chargers. Some undeclared travel chargers, AC adaptors were also found. The Appellant submitted before the Customs that it was their first order through M/s Pama and Company Ltd. UK but, due to some mistake at the end of the exporter/shipper, they also imported some another goods which are not as per the purchase order. In support of their contention, they also submitted letter dated 19/04/2011 received from Pama and Company UK, wherein the Shipper admitted its mistake that they have mistakenly packed another goods also which are not as per the purchase order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
