Clerical Error in filling Bill of Entry does not attract Penalty and Confiscation under Customs Act: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), New Delhi has held that Clerical error in filling the Bill of Entry does not attract penalty and confiscation under Customs Act.

The appellant, M/s Ceramic Tableware Pvt. Limited is a manufacturer of ceramic tableware and a regular importer of their inputs – ‘calcium phosphate’. Due to some clerical error in the Bill of entry, the description of goods was mentioned as ‘Apatite (GR) Calcium Phosphate’ and approached the revenue for correct classification and payment of duty pointing out the mistake and accordingly prayed for rectification in the Bill of Entry and offering to pay the differential amount of customs duty and GST /IGST.

It appeared to Revenue that as the appellant is a regular importer of calcium phosphate, they have deliberately misclassified the goods in the Bill of Entry for paying lower custom duty and skipping to obtain NOC from the Drug Controller Department. Accordingly, the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d), (l), (m), (n) and (o) of the Customs Act, and also the appellant was liable for penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) and Section 114AA. The Commissioner (Appeals) reject the appeal confirming the order in its original. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Tribunal.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no case of any deliberate mis-declaration. The clerical mistake came to their knowledge suo-motu filed an application for rectification and offered to pay the differential duty, even before any inspection or dispute raised by the Customs Department. The appellant further submitted that they had already been granted the ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the Drug Controller - Department. Thus, there was no reason for the appellant to deliberately miss-declare the description of goods and classification.

The Coram of Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) has observed that as the appellant has suo-moto approached the Department for making necessary rectification in the Bill of Entry about the classification, and also offered to pay the differential duty. Such suo-motu offer was made before the Department pointed out or issue any notice to the appellant. The Tribunal while setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty has held that “I hold that it is a case of simple clerical error and there is no case of contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant”.

Mr. Bipin Garg and Ms. Tamanna Alam appeared for the appellant and respondent respectively.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.2022 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 341