Order Date: 17 June 2022

Facts:

• The Appellant, M/s Ceramic Tableware Pvt. Limited, is a manufacturer of ceramic tableware located at Jaipur. They are regular importer of their inputs ‘calcium phosphate’ falling under chapter heading 28352690 due to some clerical error, the description of goods was mentioned as ‘Apatite (GR) Calcium Phosphate’ falling under chapter heading 25102030. However, the appellant suo motu discovered the error in filing the Bill of Entry, and accordingly approached the Revenue for correct classification and payment of duty vide letter, pointing the mistake and mentioning that the correct classification of the goods is 28352690 and accordingly prayed for rectification in the Bill of Entry and offering to pay the differential amount of customs duty and GST/IGST. It was also pointed out that the mistake occurred due to error in the shipping documents. 
• SCN was issuetd and the Additional Commissioner of Customs passed order-in-original dated 07.03.2020 holding that the appellant have intentionally filed Bill of Entry under wrong description and classification, and accordingly held the goods are liable for confiscation. Further, penalty under Section 112(a)(ii) was imposed Rs. 12 lakhs and also penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act of Rs. 9 lakhs. Further, option of redemption was given subject to payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs.
• Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to reject the appeal confirming the order in original. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before Tribunal.

Issue:

• Whether Redemption fine of Rs. 12 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 9 lakhs have been rightly imposed?

Order:

• The Tribunal observed that there appears to be a genuine mistake in the nature of clerical mistake on the part of the Clerk of the appellant company. This fact is evident on the basis of record, as the appellant has suo motu approached the Department for making necessary rectification in the Bill of Entry with regard to the classification, and also offered to pay the differential duty. Such suo motu offer was made before the Department pointed out or issue of any notice to the appellant. Accordingly, it was held that it is a case of simple clerical error and there is no case of contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant. 
• Therefore, the impugned order of confiscation and penalty both under Section 112(a)(ii) and 114AA of the Act is set aside and appeals filed by the appellant are allowed with consequential benefits.