2015 (7) TMI 1170 - SC - Customs

Demand - export of knitted woollen shawls (Dyed) - advance licence scheme - mis-declaration of goods - Held that - In so far as mis-declaration in respect of quantity as well as description of the goods in Shipping Bill No.4319 dated 22.05.1999 is concerned, after confirming the findings to that effect, the CESTAT reduced the redemption fine to ₹ 3,00,000/- lakhs and personal penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- - We are not inclined to interfere with the discretionary power exercised by the CESTAT in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of respondent-assessee.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration in Shipping Bill, Export obligation fulfillment, Reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty

In the present case, the issue revolved around a show cause notice issued to the respondent for mis-declaration in a Shipping Bill related to the export of knitted woollen shawls. The respondent was under an export obligation as per an Advance Licence, and the mis-declaration led to the seizure of the consignment by customs staff. The appellant demanded excise duty due to the mis-declaration. The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) confirmed the mis-declaration findings but also noted that the export obligation was met by the respondent through another consignment. Therefore, CESTAT held that no duty could be demanded for breach of export obligation. Additionally, CESTAT reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed on the respondent for the mis-declaration in the Shipping Bill. The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, declined to interfere with CESTAT's discretionary powers and dismissed the appeal.

The first issue addressed was the mis-declaration in the Shipping Bill dated 22.05.1999, which led to the show cause notice and subsequent actions by customs authorities. CESTAT confirmed the mis-declaration findings but also acknowledged the fulfillment of the export obligation through another consignment. Consequently, CESTAT reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed on the respondent for the mis-declaration. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, upheld CESTAT's decision and declined to interfere with the discretionary powers exercised by CESTAT in this regard.

The second issue involved the fulfillment of the export obligation by the respondent. Despite the mis-declaration in the initial Shipping Bill, CESTAT found that the obligation was met through another consignment, thereby negating the appellant's demand for excise duty based on the breach of the export obligation. The Supreme Court concurred with CESTAT's findings on this issue and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

The third issue centered on the reduction of the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed on the respondent by CESTAT. After confirming the mis-declaration, CESTAT reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty amounts. The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decided not to interfere with CESTAT's discretionary powers in this matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court based on the findings and decisions of CESTAT regarding the reduction of penalties.