AREBEEN STAR MARITIME AGENCIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in this case have filed an amendment to the IGM stating that instead of 90 drums mentioned the correct quantity was 585 drums and the gross weight was 61770 Kg. instead of 42522 Kgs. declared by them. The value of consignment however remained unchanged. The request for amendment was to be considered as per the provision of Sectimn 30(1) od the Austoms Act, 1960 but instead of considering their request the matter was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who held that the excess quantity was unloaded without permission and therefore held that goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) and (g) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/ - (Rs. Thirty Thousand Only) along with a penalty of Rs. 3,000/ - (Rs. Three Thousand Only).

(2.) THE learned Advocate for the appellants submits that in this case an amendment to IGM could have been refused only on the ground that there was a fraudulent intention to evade duty and there were substantial revenue implication. This was not so in the present case as neither the Additional Commissioner nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that there was a fraudulent intention and in the absence of the same, penalty was not justifiable. Learned Advocate drew our attention to the Board's Circular No. 44/2005, dated 24 -11 -2005 in which the Board has clarified that the request for amendment require adjudication only in those cases where there are major amendment involving fraudulent intention or substantial revenue implication arising from the amendments. Reference was also invited to the CESTAT decision in the case of P and O Nedlloyed (India) Pvt. Ltd, wherein a similar view was taken.

(3.) LEARNED J.D.R. submits that since in this case the goods were unloaded without permission as they were in excess of what was mentioned, they were liable to confiscation.