2002 (12) TMI 350 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of goods due to misdeclaration in a drawback shipping bill
- Imposition of penalties on the exporting company and the director

Confiscation of Goods:
The case involved a situation where the goods declared as new in a drawback shipping bill for export were found to be reconditioned upon examination. The Additional Commissioner held that the goods did not correspond with the entry made in the shipping bill, leading to confiscation of the plant and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals, stating that the goods were not prohibited for export, and the penalties were based on a conclusion of intention to misdeclare without sufficient evidence. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 113(i) were attracted as the goods did not correspond in material particulars with the entry made in the shipping bill. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, setting aside the order of the Commissioner and restoring the confiscation of the goods and penalties on the exporting company.

Imposition of Penalties:
Regarding the penalty imposed on the director of the exporting company, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence establishing the personal responsibility or involvement of the director in the misdeclaration of the export goods. As a result, the penalty on the director was set aside. The appeal seeking restoration of the penalty on the director was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of ensuring that entries in shipping bills correspond with the actual particulars of the goods to prevent misdeclarations and ineligible claims for drawbacks. The decision highlighted the legal consequences of misdeclaration in shipping documents and the liability of exporters in such cases.