ORDER
G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. By the present appeal the appellants have agitated confiscation of the imported goods as also imposition of penalty.
2. The facts of the case are the appellants imported certain chemicals for the manufacture of P.P. medicines. In the bill of entry they described the goods as chemical Tetra methyl quanidine and claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/94. The department denied them concession on the strength of the opinion of the Assistant Drug Controller who opined that the item imported by the appellants was not bulk drug. The appellants were charged for giving wrong declaration.
3. Shri K.R. Batra, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there was no misdeclaration of the goods. The goods described as Terra-Methyl quanidine; and that they had been claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/94; that if the claim was not entertainable under Notification No. 6/94 there should be neither confiscation of the goods nor the imposition of penalty. He therefore prayed that order for confiscation and the imposition of penalty may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. In support of his contentions he also cited and relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Grovers Overseas Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 129 (Tribunal).
4. Shri Y.R. Kilanyia, learned JDR for the respondent submits that misdeclaration about Notification is there and that correct Notification was not cited and the benefit was claimed on the basis of Notification which was not applicable in the case of the appellants. Therefore lower authorities have rightly confiscated the goods and imposed a personal penalty.
5. Heard the submissions of both sides. I find that the goods have been confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for misdeclaration of the goods as bulk drug. Section 111(m) reads “any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof.” I find in the instant case that the goods were described as Tetra Methyl quanidine in the Bill of Entry as well as in the invoice the goods have been described as Tetra Methyl quanidine. The only dispute was whether the goods were bulk drug or not. Thus I do not see any mis-declaration of the goods. As there was no misdeclaration of the goods therefore it was a simple matter whether they were entitled to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/94. This claim cannot be treated as declaration for the purpose of Section 111(m). In this view of the matter I hold that order of confiscation and imposition of penalty is not valid in law. Accordingly order for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty is set aside.