KURESH LAILA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A parcel which came by speed post from Hong Kong, addressed to M/s. Laila International, No. 137, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai was detained by officers of the Air Intelligence Unit (Air Customs, Chennai) on 5 -10 -2002. The parcel was opened and examined, whereupon it was found that the contents were declared on the label as "memory modules" valued at HK 2500. On further examination, it appeared that the parcel contained 500 RAMs with the following split up : -

(2.) Ld. Counsel for the appellant refers to Section 82 of the Customs Act and submits that the charge of misdeclaration is not sustainable against the appellant. The declaration found on the goods was only an entry for the purposes of the Customs Act and the same was not to be reckoned as a "declaration" filed by the importer. Hence, there was no question of misdeclaration of the goods in this case. In this connection, Id. Counsel relies on the Tribunal's decision in CC, Mumbai v. M. Vasi wherein the scope of declaration accompanying postal articles coming from abroad was examined with reference to the provisions of Section 82 of the Act and it was held that, even if any entry on such declaration was found to be wrong, the responsibility of wrong declaration could not be fastened upon the importer. In the absence of mis -declaration of anything by the appellant, the goods are not liable to confiscation and therefore the importer is not liable to be penalised. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the lower appellate authority and particularly submits that the original statement dated 20 -11 -2002 of the appellant is inculpatory and the same is not affected by his belated retraction. According to Id. SDR, as the offence of mis -declaration charged against the appellant was admitted by him in his original statement, the order of confiscation of the goods cannot be faulted.

(3.) After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I find that, in terms of Section 82 of the Customs Act, the description and value of the goods declared on its label by the supplier cannot be held to be importer's declaration. This gets support from the case of M. Vasi (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the order are extracted below : -