2003 PLP (Trib (PTD)

ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL). ‑‑‑This order will dispose of Customs Appeals Nos.K‑1489 and K‑743 of 2001; as both these appeals arise from identical facts and involve common question of law.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant did import a consignment of "Tin Free Sheets" in shape of coils of secondary quality at the unit value of US$ 280 per metric tons.

3. The subject consignment was examined by the customs for assessing whether or not correct assessment has been made. The goods were sent for chemical test to Messrs Peoples Steel Mills, Karachi, for determining the actual description of goods. The said Mill vide their test Report No.PSM/QAD/1686/2001 dated 19‑1‑2001 reported the chemical analysis of the goods. The customs believed that the importer tried to mis-declare the goods.

4. The appellant was thus charged for mis-declaration as defined in section 32(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. And later on he was penalized for the said violation. The said action of the department has been challenged through the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that impugned, order has been passed in complete disregard of the facts and relevant law on the subject. The customs defended its action.

6. The issue in this case is that whether or not transcribing of a PCT heading on the face of bill of entry ipso facto constitutes a 4mis declaration. The statement and declaration made on the bill of entry were not denied by the appellant. His declaration corresponds to the supporting import documents. Hence any mala fide intention can't be read therein, the appellant pleaded.

7. We believe that clearing agents while filing a bill of entry is required to fill the PCT column for the easement and assistance of they Assessing Officer. The perusal of section 80 of the Customs Act, 1969, indicates that during the process of assessment it is the duty of the Assessing Officer not only to examine the goods but also to tally the description, its weight and value of goods thereof, and to consider any extra information available on the bill of entry in order to arrive at a correct assessment of duty and taxes. Simply assuming that a wrong PCT heading amounts of mis-declaration would not be a correct approach to interpret section 32, where emphasis is on the word "material particulars" which means something going to the root cause of the basic declaration. To our mind, a mis-declaration in material to terms has not been made by the appellant:

8. The contravention report submitted by the Principal Appraiser indicates that the steps taken by the customs were in line with the requirements of section 80 of the Act in order to properly assess the goods. This fact is not disputed that the appellant made a correct declaration in respect of description, weight and value, and the same do correspond to the relevant documents submitted in support of that. In these circumstances, assuming that there was an intention of the appellant to misguide the respondent amounts to stretching of the law in order to bring a normal act of an importer in the fold of violations. Such attitudes on the part of functionaries is not desirable, as a functionary is to carry out its duties within the framework of law. It has clearly been laid down, therein that he has to get the goods tested chemically from the chemical experts, etc. And very rightly the Assessing Officer can send the goods for testing to the proper professional authorities and accordingly on the basis of their advice to assess the goods. In these circumstances, we do not agree with the point of view of the respondent that any mis-declaration has been made by the appellant.

9. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Adjudicating Officer for deciding it afresh on the merits of the case. S.A.K./522/Tax (Trib.) Order accordingly.