9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Misdeclaration of weight for claiming higher drawback leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. Analysis: The appellant filed two shipping bills for export of hand tools, declaring a certain weight for each consignment. However, upon examination by customs authorities, the actual weight was found to be significantly less than the declared weight, resulting in a shortfall in the admissible drawback amount. The authorities alleged deliberate misdeclaration of quantity to claim higher drawback and initiated proceedings for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. The Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the difference in quantity was due to mixing of consignments, and there was no misdeclaration of value. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of penalty for appeal hearing and requested the setting aside of confiscation and penalty. The appellant contended that the difference in weight was not intentional misdeclaration but a result of mixing consignments, emphasizing that the value mentioned in invoices was per piece, not per kilogram. The appellant also argued that the penalty and redemption fine were excessive compared to the excess drawback claim amount. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative asserted that the misdeclaration of quantity was deliberate to claim higher drawback, making the export contrary to Customs Act provisions, justifying the confiscation and penalty. The Department argued that the value cap mentioned in the Drawback Schedule was per kilogram, not per piece, and weight was crucial for drawback calculation. Upon considering the submissions and evidence, the Judge found that the actual weight was significantly less than the declared weight, impacting the quantum of admissible drawback. The Judge held that the misdeclaration of weight was intentional to claim higher drawback, justifying the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under relevant Customs Act sections. However, acknowledging that the excess drawback claimed was minimal compared to the imposed fine and penalty, the Judge reduced the redemption fine and penalty to facilitate the export of goods. The appellant was given the option to export the goods on payment of reduced fines within a specified timeframe to be eligible for drawback under Customs Act provisions. Failure to export would require payment of original fines as per the impugned order. The appeal, stay application, and miscellaneous application were disposed of accordingly.
|
