2017 (3) TMI 448 - AT - Customs

Imposition of penalty - appellant had exported goods which are mis-declared in weight and value and are held liable to be confiscated under the provisions of Section 113 of the CA, 1962 - Held that - Mis-declaration of the goods in value is also seems to be proved against M/s M.N. Enterprises, proprietor. The grounds of appeal of M/s M.N. Enterprises only seeks to challenge the impugned order on the ground that the purchase price of the goods was as per the present market value. The adjudicating authority has clearly recorded a finding that it is not so - penalty upheld. As regards penalty imposed on M/s International Express Company, the CHA and its employee and partner, we find that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty u/s 114(iii) only on the ground that the shipping bill in which the goods were exported or sought to be exported have been filed by the CHA and signed by its employee. In the entire order of the adjudicating authority there is nothing on record to show that the employee of CHA or the partner of CHA were aware of the fact that they were having any knowledge of the mis-declaration of the quantity and value of the goods - penalty dismissed. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenges to penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority on various appellants for mis-declaration of goods in weight and value leading to liability under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
- The appeals were filed against penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai, on the appellants for exporting goods with mis-declared weight and value.
- M/s M.N. Enterprises and its proprietor challenged the penalties imposed on the grounds that the purchase price of the goods was as per the present market value. However, the adjudicating authority found mis-declaration of quantity and value, leading to dismissal of their appeal.
- The penalties imposed on M/s International Express Company, a Customs House Agent (CHA), and its employee and partner were based on the submission of shipping bills. The adjudicating authority found no concrete evidence to prove their knowledge of mis-declaration, relying on presumptions and surmises.
- The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on International Express Company, its employee, and partner, as there was no concrete evidence to establish their involvement in the mis-declaration of goods.
- The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with penalties upheld for M/s M.N. Enterprises and its proprietor, while penalties on M/s International Express Company, its employee, and partner were set aside.

This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in establishing liability for mis-declaration of goods in customs matters, especially when penalties are imposed on individuals associated with the export process. The decision emphasizes the need for a clear link between the actions of the appellants and the mis-declaration to justify penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.