Page 209 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] BIKASH SAHA v. PRINCIPAL COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KOLKATA 887

violation of the Customs Act is only the excess quantity of the goods which have
been imported by them without declaring in any of the documents. These goods
are also not covered by the SAFTA certificate. As per Section 111 of the Customs
Act, 1962 several types of goods brought in the place outside India are liable for
confiscation. Clause (l) of this section reads as follows :-
“Any dutiable or prohibited goods which are not included or are in excess
of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of bag-
gage in the declaration made under section 77.”
Clause (e) of Section 111 reads as follows :-
“Any dutiable or prohibited goods found concealed in any manner in any
conveyance.”
14. Learned adjudicating authority has found that the goods in ques-
tion do not conform to the declarations made in the entry made under the Cus-
toms Act, i.e. the Bill of Entry and hence held the goods liable for confiscation
under Section 111(e) and under Section 111(l) of the Customs Act, 1962.
15. A plain reading of Section 111(e) and (l) shows that these apply to
such goods only which have been concealed and have not been declared and not
the entire quantity of goods. In fact Section 111(l) is very categorical that it ap-
plies to goods found in excess of what have been declared. Therefore, we find
that excess goods are liable for confiscation and not the entire consignment im-
ported by the appellant. We therefore find that only the following goods are lia-
ble for confiscation :-
(1) Customs Appeal No. 77302 of 2019 of M/s. Bishal Exports - 3133
pieces of men’s shorts.
(2) Customs Appeal No. 77314 of 2019 of M/s. Dutta Enterprises - 6240
pieces of men’s T-Shirts and 1964 pieces of men’s shorts.
16. We find that the confiscation of the remaining goods is not support-
ed by law and accordingly needs to be set aside and we do so.
17. We also find that the denial of the exemption notification for the en-
tire quantity of goods when the bulk of the goods are already covered by the
SAFTA certificate is not supported by any legal provision. Therefore, the de-
mands need to be set aside to that extent and we do so. The amount of redemp-
tion fine imposed by the impugned order as well as the penalties imposed upon
the appellants need to be proportionately reduced.
18. In view of the above, we allow the appeals partly upholding the
confiscation of the excess quantity of goods found in the consignment over and
above what was declared and duty on such quantity of pieces. The remaining
part of the demand and the confiscation of the remaining goods is set aside. Con-
sequently the redemption fine as well as penalty upon the appellants needs to be
reduced in proportion to the value of the excess goods to the total value of goods.
19. Appeals are partly allowed and the matters are remanded to the
original authority for the limited purpose of calculation of the amount of duty,
fine and penalty as above.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 12-12-2019)

_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  209