TITAN INDUSTRIES LTD., Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals, filed by the Department as well as the importer against the orders passed by the Commissioner in Order No 1/95 dt. 15.2.95. In terms of that order, he confiscated the goods under import holding them liable for confiscation under Section 111(1) and 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962, he allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs 5 lacs and penalty of Rs 1 lakh under section 112(a) on the importer. He also demanded appropriate Customs duty on the misdeclared goods sought to be evaded amounting to Rs 19,84,514/ -

(2.) THE appeals are being decided by this common order, after hearing both sides and considering the submissions made and the application filed on behalf of the importers Advocate Shri R. Raghavan on 20 -2 -2001 in the Court.

(3.) WE have considered the matter and find - (a) Briefly stated, the matter is an import made in this case of watch parts by the appellant, a well known manufacturer of watches in India in the course of regular trade, for actual use. The Bill of Entry was filed on 28.12.94 and was assessed on the same date and duty was paid on 29.12.94 as per the assessment. The importer vide their letter dated 16.1.95 (submitted to the Customs on 23.1.95) informed the Customs that there was some error made and there was a second invoice which included the excess items, as found on the date of detection, when the gods were examined for Customs purpose on 23.1.95. The request on 16.1.95 (presented on 23.1.95) was for permission to amend the Bill of Entry, to include the quantity as per the second invoice No E. 12055 dated 21.12.94 since the goods actually found valued at Rs. 27,37,262/ - (FOB) which was not declared. Watch parts ie. 14300 pieces of Crystal instead of 752 declared; 215 Gold Gaskets instead of 200 declared; 22700 white Gaskets instead of 1270 declared were found on examination. It was taken to be a mis -declaration, of value and quantity and liable for confiscation under section 111 (1) & (m) of the Custom Act, 1962 and penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962 was called for. The fax message from the suppliers were produced indicating that the consolidation agent had inadvertently omitted to enclose the second invoice though the entries of that invoice were made in the Airway Bill. This was considered to be second thoughts and not acceptable.