2015 (12) TMI 858 - AT - Customs

100% EOU - Mis-Declaration of excess quantity of export goods to meet export obligation - Confiscation of goods - Gutkha under the brand name of kolhapuri . - Imposition of redemption fine - Held that - It is a fact on record that on physical verification, there was shortage of quantity of export goods to the tune of around 30%. If the goods were not checked at the time of export, the appellant could have shown the quantity of export goods as shown in the shipping bill as correct and had availed rebate claim thereon. It is only after detection of the shortage of quantity, the appellant sought to forego the rebate claim. Therefore, the excuse of the appellant that they have to meet export obligation and their labour was in hurry and has packed less quantity of export goods in the containers is not sustainable. In these circumstances, the charge of mis-declaration of quantity of good by the appellants stands proved. Therefore, the lower authorities have rightly held that the export goods are liable for confiscation. In the impugned order, the redemption fine of ₹ 12 lakh has been imposed on the appellant whereas the quantity in number found short is 15,26,400 pouches, which I find is appropriate. Therefore, redemption fine of ₹ 12 lakh imposed on the appellant is confirmed - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant for mis-declaration of export goods quantity.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order imposing redemption fine and penalties on the appellant for mis-declaration of export goods quantity. The appellant, a manufacturer of Gutkha, filed a shipping bill declaring a specific quantity of pouches, but upon inspection, a significant variation was found between the declared quantity and the actual physical quantity. Subsequently, a 100% check revealed a shortage of 15,26,400 pouches, leading to allegations of mis-declaration and confiscation of goods. The appellant argued that there was no intention to mis-declare the quantity and had foregone rebate claims, but the authorities contended that the mis-declaration was intentional.

The Tribunal noted that a 30% shortage in the physical verification indicated mis-declaration by the appellant. It was observed that the appellant's excuse of being in a hurry and packing less quantity of goods was not acceptable, especially considering the potential rebate claim. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and confirmed the redemption fine of Rs. 12 lakhs. However, it found the penalties imposed excessively high and reduced them to Rs. 1 lakh each under relevant sections of the Act.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the confirmation of the redemption fine and the reduction of penalties. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate declaration of export goods quantity and the consequences of mis-declaration, emphasizing the need for compliance with legal provisions to avoid penalties and confiscation of goods.