2015 (12) TMI 168 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - misdeclaration of the quantity and value of goods meant for export - neither such quantities were available in the exporting consignments nor the values declared were correct - Held that - there was violation of provision of section 113(i) and 113(ii) of Customs Act, 1962 since there was a misdeclaration of the quantity and value of the goods with material departure to the particulars relating to quantity and value of the goods being attempted to be exported under drawback claim not corresponding in material particular with the information furnished in the export documents. Revenue s contention that appellant acted deliberately cannot be ruled out for the reason that an exporter who has not remitted higher amount of foreign exchange to this country does not expect higher quantity of goods with higher value. Accordingly, confiscation of the goods was justified. Since the goods were under drawback claim, imposition of redemption fine is also warranted under law. But learned Commissioner did not record his finding on redemption fine. Therefore it is desirable to work out the same in the interest of justice. - Matter remnanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of quantity and value in export documents, liability for penalty and redemption fine under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The exporters declared incorrect quantities and values of silk carpets in the Shipping Bills, leading to a higher claim of duty drawback. Upon detection by customs, revised Shipping Bills were filed with lower quantities, attributing the misdeclaration to clerical errors in the original documents.

2. The exporters argued that there was no deliberate misdeclaration and that they rectified the mistake upon discovery. They contended that since duty drawback was claimed based on the Shipping Bills' values, they should not be liable for penalty or redemption fine, as they had declared the correct value in the revised documents.

3. The Revenue asserted that the misdeclaration was intentional, as detected by customs, and that the higher values in the original Shipping Bills led to a false claim of duty drawback. They argued that misdeclaration of quantity and value constituted a breach of the law, justifying the imposition of penalty and redemption fine under sections 113(i) and 113(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. The Tribunal found that the misdeclaration of quantity led to a misdeclaration of value, which could potentially facilitate illegal transactions. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that misstating export values could lead to unauthorized money transactions, including money laundering.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that there was a violation of Customs Act provisions due to the misdeclaration. However, it remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to determine the appropriate penalty and redemption fine, as the original decision did not address the difference in values between the original and revised Shipping Bills.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue's appeal, pending the redetermination of penalty and redemption fine by the Commissioner. The appeals of both the assessee and the Revenue were disposed of, with the matter requiring further adjudication on the specific penalties to be imposed.