Vs.

Judges: S.C. AGRAWAL & G.T.NANAVATI, JJ.

Date of Judgment: Jul 14, 1998

Section 111(d) and (m) read with notification No. 52/86 – Cus (as amended by notification No. 157/88 – (us) and notification No. 50/88 – C Ex.- Exemption -Claim of – Photographic Colour Films (Unexposed) Positive, described as Cinematographic films – Bill of Entry – Specific and clear description of goods – No descrip-tion of Rolls “Jumbo” – No separate heading or sub-heading in Chapter 37 of Custom Tariff – Earlier consignment of same de-scription and classification cleared for exemption. Held that merely claiming exemption under notification No. 52/86 and be-cause there was separate notification in respect of “Jumbo Colour Film”, it cannot be said that declaration did not correspond to “any other particular” of goods and thus the importer had tried to evade payment of proper custom duty.(Para 20)

Section 111 (m) read with notification No. 58/88- Confiscation – Misdeclaration – Claim of exemption from payment of countervail-ing duty – Photographic Colour Films, described as Cinematograph-ic films – Goods intended to be used as cinematographic films – Same falling under sub-heading of 3702.20 of custom tariff – Full and correct particulars given. Held that there was no misdeclara-tion either as regard to classification or by claiming exemption with any dishonest intention of evading countervailing duty.

As the goods imported by the appellant were being used and intended to be used as Cinematographic Film, the appellant had described them as Cinematographic Films covered by sub-heading 3702.20. It does not appear that such goods were intended to be covered by sub-heading 3702.90. As regards the claim for exemp-tion in payment of countervailing duty the appellant had stated that it was entitled to the benefit under notification No.50/88-C.Ex. This declaration made by the appellant has been found to be wrong by the Collector and CEGAT on the ground that there was a separate exemption notification in respect of jumbo rolls for Cinematographic Films. The declaration was in the nature of a claim made on the basis of the belief entertained by the appell-ant and therefore, cannot be said to be a misdeclaration as contemplated by Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. As the ap-pellant had given full and correct particulars as regards the nature and size of the goods, it is difficult to believe that it had referred to the wrong exemption notification with any dishon-est intention of evading proper payment of countervailing duty.(Para 23)