Discrepancy Between Statements and Bills of Entry Cannot Be a Ground to Reject Genuine Bills of Entry: CESTAT [Read Order]
The Tribunal examined the legal position, noting that statements under Section 108 are relevant only if the maker is examined as a witness and the statement is admitted as evidence under Section 138B.
In a recent ruling, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that a discrepancy between statements and bills of entry cannot be a ground for rejecting genuine bills of entry, and quashed the confiscation of imported fabrics and the associated penalties.
The appeal filed by Sushant Agarwal challenged the order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), which had confiscated eight lots of fabrics imported by him and imposed penalties.
The appellant contended that the seized goods were legally imported and submitted relevant Bills of Entry and supporting documents in his defence, which the Commissioner rejected, citing inconsistencies with statements made during the investigation and mismatched marks and numbers recorded in the Panchnama.
The appeal concerned eight out of fourteen imported lots that were seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the belief that they were smuggled goods under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appellant produced documentary evidence, including Bills of Entry, invoices, and test reports to establish that the goods were legally imported. The Commissioner rejected the submissions on two grounds: the documents contradicted statements made under Section 108 of the Act during seizure, and marks or numbers on the goods did not match the Panchnama.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) andP.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) examined the legal position, noting that statements under Section 108 are relevant only if the maker is examined as a witness and the statement is admitted as evidence under Section 138B. Since this procedure was not followed, discrepancies with statements could not legally discredit the Bills of Entry.
Further, minor differences or omissions in marks and numbers in the B/Es do not automatically negate their authenticity, as such inconsistencies may arise during filing or handling.
Complete Supreme Court Judgment on GST from 2017 to 2024 with Free E-Book Access, Click here
The Tribunal also referred to its earlier order, which had remanded the matter to the Commissioner, directing proper consideration of the appellant’s documents. It observed that the appellant had adequately discharged the burden of proving that the seized goods were legally imported.
The confiscation of the eight lots of fabrics and imposition of penalties were found to be unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
