Sterling Impex Vs Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 duly imposed since the appellant had intentionally mis-declared the nature of the goods in the Bill of Entry (BOE).
Facts- The appellant filed Bill of Entry to clear goods declared as “Plain Polyester fabric with PVC Lamination of 0.30 mm”. Officers of the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch examined the consignment and found that the quantity of the goods was as declared but the fabric which was imported was of much higher thickness ranging from 0.38mm to 0.45 mm. Samples of the goods were sent for testing to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory who sent their test reports stating that the goods were of thickness 0.38 mm to 0.45 mm. The imported goods were seized u/s. 110 of Customs Act, 1962 under the belief that the goods were liable for confiscation u/s. 111 of the Act.
Accordingly, the value of the goods were re-determined and differential duty was demanded. Penalty u/s. 112(a) and 114AA were also imposed.
Conclusion- Held that the appellant had clearly made a declaration in the Bill of Entry which is false. The appellant’s contention is that it had no intention and it had actually ordered for goods of 0.3 mm thickness but its supplier had supplied goods of much higher thickness (and therefore of higher quality) but sent an invoice for goods of only 0.3 mm. This submission cannot be accepted. If anyone orders some goods and the seller delivers wrong goods, one will naturally return them. Instead, in this case, the appellant accepted the mistake and sought provisional release of the goods which were actually imported. This shows that wrong goods were not sent by the supplier and it is the appellant who made the wrong statement in the Bill of Entry and produced an invoice for the wrong goods to evade duty. The intention of any person can only be inferred from the facts of the case and the behaviour of the person. In this case, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant had intentionally mis-declared the nature of the goods in the Bill of Entry. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- each was correctly imposed on the appellant under sections 114AA and 112 of the Act.
