2008 (7) TMI 730 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods for export under incorrect heading.
2. Confiscation and penalty under Customs Act and Foreign Trade Act.
3. Request for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and stay of recovery pending appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the classification of goods for export under an incorrect heading in a Shipping Bill. The appellant had declared the goods correctly but entered the Chapter sub-heading applicable to machinery incorrectly. The appellant claimed it was an inadvertent mistake due to lack of awareness of a recent DGFT notification. The Tribunal acknowledged the error but emphasized that the exporter cannot be penalized for incorrect classification by the authorities. The penalty for misdeclaration was deemed unjustified, and the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of penalty was granted until the appeal's disposal.

2. The goods in question, specifically rice, were classified under a specific Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) which required export only through designated ports as per a DGFT notification issued on 5-3-2008. Chennai Sea Port was not designated for rice export. The original authority had confiscated the rice valued at Rs. 6.57 lakhs under the Customs Act and Foreign Trade Act, imposing a fine and penalty on the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants had declared the goods as rice, sought shut out of the offending goods, and were not deliberate in misdeclaring the classification. Therefore, the penalty for attempting to export restricted goods by misdeclaration was considered unjustified, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the penalty.

3. The appellant, M/s. Siva Enterprises, filed an appeal against the impugned order, seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and stay of recovery pending the appeal's decision. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides and concluded that the penalty for misdeclaration was unjustified given the circumstances. As a result, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and ordered a stay of recovery of the penalty until the appeal was resolved.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of incorrect classification, confiscation and penalty under relevant acts, and the request for waiver and stay of recovery, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision.