9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty based on alleged misdeclaration of goods for claiming drawback. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty due to alleged misdeclaration for claiming drawback. The appellants had filed a green Shipping Bill claiming drawback for goods alleged by the Department to not be exclusively used as bicycle spare parts. The Commissioner confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty based on this allegation. The appellants argued that the goods were mostly exported as bicycle parts and that the dispute was limited to specific items. They contended that the confiscation was incorrect as the disputed items were not concealed. The appellants also argued that samples taken should have been sent for expert opinion to prove the goods were meant for bicycles. The Department failed to provide evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal found that there was misdeclaration in the Drawback shipping bills and that some goods could be used for mopeds, not exclusively for bicycles. As a result, only goods not entitled to drawback should have been confiscated. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 50,000 for the confiscated goods. Regarding the imposition of penalty, the Tribunal noted a mix-up in presenting green shipping bills for goods not entitled to drawback. While acknowledging the imposability of penalty, considering past practices, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 75,000. In terms of the admissibility of Drawback on eligible goods, the dispute was limited to three items, and the Tribunal held that Drawback shall be admissible on other items. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of with the above decisions.
|
