1984 (3) TMI 402 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods for export, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty under Customs Act.

The judgment involves an appeal against an order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, regarding the misdeclaration of goods for export. The appellant exported cotton garments, but upon examination, it was found that a portion of the goods was made of powerloom fabric instead of handloom fabric as declared. The Assistant Collector held it as a case of misdeclaration, leading to confiscation of goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act and imposition of a penalty under Section 114. The exporter's explanation of unintentional misdeclaration due to incorrect information from suppliers was not accepted, and a fine was imposed in lieu of confiscation along with a penalty due to prior knowledge. The Appellate Collector upheld the confiscation but reduced the penalty imposed. The appellant argued that the export of garments made of handloom and powerloom fabrics to the USA was allowed under O.G.L3 against quota allotment and there was no prohibition under the Customs Act or Export Control Order. The violation was attributed to incorrect supplies by the manufacturer, and the appellant contended that no penalty under Section 114 should be imposed as there was no violation of Section 113(d). The appellant highlighted that there was no benefit in giving an incorrect declaration as both handloom and powerloom fabrics were under the same export policy. The appellant stressed their reputation and efforts in promoting garment exports to the USA to refute any intentional misdeclaration. The respondent argued that the misdeclaration led to a breach of the Export Control Order and Customs Act, justifying the confiscation and penalty. The judgment acknowledged the misdeclaration and upheld the confiscation and imposition of a reduced penalty, considering the extenuating circumstances. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 500, and the fine in lieu of confiscation was reduced to Rs. 5,000, while the appeal was otherwise rejected.