9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against order confiscating goods under Section 113 of the Act and imposing penalties. - Interpretation of clauses (d) and (i) of Section 113. - Application of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. - Determination of value for export goods. - Imposition and enhancement of penalties. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenges the order confiscating goods under clauses (d) and (i) of Section 113 of the Act, involving misdeclaration of goods by a company and its officials. The Commissioner sought to enhance the penalty imposed on the company for the offense. 2. The representative of the appellants acknowledged the misdeclaration of goods but argued against confiscation under clauses (d) and (i) of Section 113, contending that the goods were not prohibited for export, nor were they dutiable or exported under claim of drawback. The applicability of clause (i) was questioned. 3. Clause (d) of Section 113 applies to goods attempted to be exported contrary to any prohibition imposed by law. The issue revolves around whether the misdeclaration of goods falls under this provision. 4. Referring to the Calcutta High Court judgment in CC v. Pankaj V. Sheth, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of correct declaration of value for export goods under the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. Incorrect declaration violates the rules and attracts provisions of Sections 111 and 113 of the Act. 5. The Tribunal, bound by the Calcutta High Court judgment, upheld the confiscation of goods due to misdeclaration. The lack of explanation for the misdeclaration and the disparity in the declared value versus the actual value supported the decision. 6. Regarding penalties, the Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs, which was challenged by the Department seeking enhancement. The Tribunal agreed with the Department, increasing the penalty to Rs. 30.00 lakhs due to the gravity of the offense and the lack of benefit derived from the misdeclaration. 7. The penalties imposed on the Vice President and Director of the company were upheld, as there was no evidence to suggest their lack of knowledge or involvement in the illegal export activity. 8. The appeals challenging the confiscation and penalties were dismissed, except for one appeal where the penalty was enhanced. The decision reaffirmed the seriousness of misdeclaration and upheld the penalties imposed on the company and its officials.
|
