2004 (10) TMI 392 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of goods under Sections 113(d) & (i) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposition of penalty on the exporting firm's proprietor challenged.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the confiscation of 135 packages of goods for misdeclaration and imposition of penalty on the exporting firm's proprietor. The shipping bill declared the export of ladies dresses and shirts with a claimed drawback of Rs. 5 lakhs. Upon examination, it was discovered that packages from Sl. No. 40 to 135 contained old and used clothes instead of the declared goods. The Commissioner confiscated the entire consignment, including the correctly declared packages, under Sections 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act, citing misdeclaration with fraudulent intent.

The appellant challenged the confiscation of the correctly declared goods in packages 1 to 39, arguing that since these goods matched the declaration, confiscation was unjustified. Additionally, the appellant contested the penalty amount imposed as excessive. The appellant's counsel argued against the invocation of Sections 118 and 119 of the Customs Act, stating they were related to imported goods, not exported ones.

The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the appellant's contentions, asserting that the entire consignment should be considered offending under Section 113(i) and that the confiscation was justified. The DR highlighted that more than 2/3rd of the goods did not match the declaration and cited a previous case to support the argument for confiscation of all goods in the consignment. Regarding the penalty, the DR deemed it reasonable given the fraudulent nature of the claim.

After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the judge concurred with the DR, upholding the confiscation of the entire consignment, including the correctly declared packages. The judge emphasized that the majority of the goods did not match the declaration and had no commercial value. The penalty amount was deemed appropriate considering the fraudulent draw back claim. Consequently, the judge affirmed the impugned order, rejecting the appeals and ruling against any interference.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty, emphasizing the fraudulent nature of the draw back claim and the misdeclaration in the consignment, leading to the rejection of the appeals.