TOP FOAM IMPEX Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide his impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla has confiscated the imported pile fabrics under Section 111(d)/(m)/(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.25 lakhs. The value of the goods also stands enhanced to US $ 1.00 CIF per metre. A penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - stand imposed on the appellant.

(2.) AFTER hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is a unit located in Kandla Special Economic Zone and placed orders for import of pile fabrics with M/s. Silky Weave Trading EST, Dubai for 30600 yards. The appellants shipping agent M/s. Tai -Pan Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vide their letter dated 9 -7 -2001 sought amendment of IGM and bill of lading for changing the weight of the goods from 28.100 MTs to 7340 kgs. The said request was made by them on the basis of a letter written by M/s. Eva Shipping Services P. Ltd., the appellants authorized liner agent. On receipt of the above request, the goods were examined in the presence of CHA and were found to be 10.510 kgs. As such the proceedings were initiated for confiscation as also for imposition of penalty.

(3.) THE appellant contends that their unit is a registered trading unit in Kandla Special Economic Zone and as per packing list, there was no difference in yards/rolls. The request to change the IGM was based upon the request by the liner agent. Inasmuch as the weight was wrongly shown as 28.100 kgs. by the supplier which was intimated to the agents who applied for change in the IGM showing weight as 7340 Kgs. However, it is submitted that the said reflection was by calculating the fabrics as of 240 GSM whereas the weight was to be calculated in square metre and would come to 10.135 kgs. As such, it was on account of calculation mistake that weight was shown wrongly whereas the goods were otherwise found to be tallying in rolls/yards. The said fact cannot lead to any mala fide intention on the part of the appellant. The goods were freely importable by them and as such, there cannot be any mala fide on their part to misdeclare the goods either on weight basis or in respect of value. We agree with the above contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants. The difference in weight is only on the basis of wrong multiplication of calculation whereas the goods were otherwise found to be tallying in yards/rolls. As such, we hold that this is a case of miscalculation and not of mala fide on the part of the appellant. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in the open Court)