2016 (12) TMI 1033 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of description of export goods - confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty - DEPB scheme - Held that - though there was no intention of availing undue benefit but due to different descriptions on different documents mis-declaration had taken place - confiscation and fine justified. As regards penalty, it is observed that had there been any intention to avail undue benefit, there would not have been clerical errors in the description given in various connected documents. Therefore, there was no intention to avail undue benefit - penalty set aside. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Misdeclaration of goods in export documents leading to penalty and confiscation.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer and exporter of Denim Fabric, who exported goods to Nepal with discrepancies in the description of the goods on various documents. The Departmental Authorities found that the composition of the goods did not match the description provided in the export documents. A sample of the goods was tested, revealing a different composition than what was declared. Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the matter, imposing a penalty and ordering the confiscation of the goods. The appellant contended that the errors in the description were clerical mistakes and not intentional to avail undue benefits under the DEPB Scheme.

The appellant argued that the discrepancies in the description of goods were due to different functionaries preparing various documents based on the letter of credit. They maintained that no benefit was actually availed under the DEPB Scheme post-adjudication, as the goods were exported under a free shipping bill. The appellant emphasized that had there been an intention to gain undue benefits through misdeclaration, the discrepancies in the descriptions across documents would not have occurred. The Department, represented by the ld. DR, acknowledged that the discrepancies seemed to be clerical errors on the part of the appellant.

Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that while misdeclaration had indeed occurred due to the differing descriptions in various documents, there was no evidence of an intention to avail undue benefits. The Tribunal concluded that the clerical errors in the description indicated the absence of any deliberate attempt to deceive or gain an advantage. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation and redemption fine but set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The judgment was modified to reflect the removal of the penalty, partially allowing the appeal filed by the appellant.