2015 (3) TMI 285 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Penalty under Section 114(ii) - Held that - Appellant had appeared for personal hearing on 13.12.2010 before the Commissioner (Appeals) and had contended that the T-Shirts have been exported for promotion purpose and not by way of sale, nor the export was under any beneficial scheme and further no duty was leviable on the said goods and accordingly, there was no case of any mis-declaration and or failure as per Regulation 13(b) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 and as such, no penalty was leviable on them. I further find that the said contention of the appellant have neither been found to be wrong nor rejected in the impugned order and as such I hold that the impugned order is perverse and contrary to the facts on record. Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant. Penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act stands set aside. - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
1. Incorrect declaration of value in Courier shipping bill
2. Confiscation of goods under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act
4. Appeal against the penalty before the Commissioner (Appeals)
5. Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the penalty

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Courier, filed a Courier shipping bill declaring a value of &8377; 15,000 for the export of 150 T-Shirts. However, upon examination, the MRP value was found to be &8377; 1,52,150, which exceeded the permissible limit under the Courier Import & Export Regulations. The goods were confiscated under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act due to the incorrect declaration of value.

2. The penalty was imposed on both the Exporter and the appellant-Courier under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act for attempting to export goods improperly. The penalty was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The appellant argued before the Tribunal that Section 114(ii) was not applicable as they did not make any false declaration and the value declared was based on the shipper's instructions. They contended that there was no abetment in duty evasion, mis-declaration, or violation of obligations as a Courier. The appellant claimed that the goods were not for sale but for promotional purposes, and hence, no penalty should be imposed.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the contentions, found that the appellant's arguments were not refuted in the impugned order. It held that there was no mis-declaration or failure as per the regulations, and thus, the penalty under Section 114(ii) was unjustified. The impugned order was deemed perverse and contrary to the facts on record, leading to its setting aside and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act was revoked.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues of incorrect declaration, confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, appeal process, and the final judgment by the Tribunal, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and outcomes in the case.