2026-VIL-1806-CESTAT-MUM-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1806-CESTAT-MUM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty on goods imported in a container where the supplier mistakenly loaded different goods than ordered - Appellant imported goods including children's garments, and on examination the goods were found to be men's under garments in larger quantity than declared, the declaration having been made as per the supplier's invoice and import documents - Department alleged misdeclaration, misclassification and undervaluation, and the goods were confiscated under Sections 111(d), 111(l) and 111(m) with redemption fine and penalty under Section 112(a), which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appellant contended that the supplier had admitted that goods meant for another buyer were mistakenly loaded and sought to take them back - Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty are sustainable where the change in goods occurred due to supplier's mistake - HELD - There was a mix-up of goods in the container beyond the control of the Appellant, and the resultant change in classification cannot be treated as misclassification. The goods were declared as per the supplier's invoice and import documents, the Department produced no other evidence of misdeclaration, and there is no material to show fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement or intent to evade duty. A coordinate Bench has held that wrongly shipped goods could be released on the strength of bona fides, and the Board Circular on re-export of goods imported under bona fide mistake requires such cases to be considered on merits. Since the goods were free of azo dyes, they can be cleared on payment of appropriate duty - The bona fides of the Appellant having been proved, there is no ground for redemption fine on goods other than non-releasable goods or for penalty, and the impugned order to this extent is set aside - Confiscation of imported goods for non-compliance with BIS requirements and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules - Amplifiers not registered with the Bureau of Indian Standards by the foreign supplier were treated as non-releasable, and other goods lacked mandatory labelling declarations, with redemption fine imposed on non-releasable goods subject to re-export - Appellant sought re-export of the non-releasable goods - Whether the confiscation and redemption fine on such goods are sustainable - HELD - The mandatory labelling requirements are to be fulfilled before clearance for home consumption, and a Public Notice permits labels to be affixed before clearance with permission of the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner. Since the Department itself examined the goods before normal examination, the Appellant could not have sought such permission earlier, so the labelling lapse is curable. The amplifiers lacked compulsory BIS registration and were rightly treated as non-releasable, and the Appellant's willingness to re-export was accepted by the competent authority - The redemption fine on non-releasable goods subject to re-export is not disturbed and the appeal is partly allowed.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?