9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 100 - AT - CustomsDuty drawback - mis-declared the goods in the Shipping Bill to claim higher drawback - appellant exported Industrial Garments Boiler Safety Suits Jackets 2000 pieces and Industrial Garments Boiler Safety Suit Cotton Pants 2000 pieces as per description in the Shipping Bill. While claiming drawback they claimed drawback separately on the Jackets & Pants. As per notes to the drawback schedule, the drawback is allowed on an ensemble which means a set of garments comprising of upper part and lower part. Held that - there is no mis-declaration of description of goods in the Shipping Bill. Neither is there any mis-declaration of value. The claim of drawback separately on Jackets & Pants is an error but malafide intention cannot be ascribed to invoke penalty. Section 113(i) can be invoked when there is mi-declaration of description or value. In this case it is not so. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues: Mis-declaration in Shipping Bill for claiming higher drawback; Confiscation of goods; Imposition of redemption and penalty under Customs Act.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue revolved around whether the appellant had mis-declared the goods in the Shipping Bill to claim a higher drawback. The Commissioner (Appeals) had concluded that there was indeed mis-declaration, leading to the confiscation of goods and the imposition of redemption under Section 113(i) and penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act. The appellant had exported Industrial Garments - Boiler Safety Suits Jackets and Cotton Pants, with a discrepancy in claiming drawback separately on the Jackets and Pants, contrary to the requirement of claiming drawback on an "ensemble" as per the drawback schedule. The Tribunal found that while there was an error in claiming drawback separately, there was no mis-declaration of goods' description or value in the Shipping Bill. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty under Section 113(i) could only be invoked in cases of mis-declaration of description or value, which was not the situation in this case. Given the absence of willful mis-declaration by the appellant, the Tribunal deemed the penalty as unsustainable. The judgment cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise and a Tribunal case of ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports) to support its stance. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|
