2017 (6) TMI 927 - AT - Customs

Basmati rice - misdeclaration - confiscation - Held that - it has been admitted by the appellant themselves that the goods were found mis-declared. In that circumstances the goods were rightly held liable for confiscation by the adjudicating authority. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - the value of goods as declared by the appellant is 1, 29, 63, 498/- on which the redemption fine of 15, 90, 000/- has been imposed and the penalty of 10 Lac has been imposed - considering the quantum to be excessive the redemption fine reduced to 13 Lacs - the penalty shall remain of 10 lacs on the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty for mis-declaration of goods in export shipping bills.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order imposing redemption fine and penalty due to mis-declaration of goods in export shipping bills. The appellant had filed shipping bills for Indian Basmati Rice, but upon inspection, it was discovered that the goods were not Basmati Rice and were found in excess quantity. Additionally, some consignments contained chickpeas instead of rice, indicating mis-declaration. Consequently, the goods were held liable for confiscation, leading to the imposition of a redemption fine of ?15,90,000/- and a penalty of ?10 Lac on the appellant. The appellant contended that the mis-declaration was due to labor loading wrong goods in the container, absolving the appellant of fault. The appellant cited a previous tribunal decision to support the argument for reducing the redemption fine and penalty.

The tribunal acknowledged that the goods were indeed mis-declared, justifying their confiscation. The main issue revolved around determining the appropriate quantum of redemption fine and penalty. The appellant referenced a previous case where the redemption fine was reduced to market value, leading to a reduction in the fine. However, in the current case, the declared value of goods was ?1,29,63,498/-, resulting in a redemption fine of ?15,90,000/- and a penalty of ?10 Lac. Following the precedent set in the previous case, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine to ?13 Lacs while maintaining the penalty at ?10 Lacs for the appellant. The appeals were disposed of based on these terms.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods due to mis-declaration but adjusted the redemption fine and penalty based on the value of the goods and precedent decisions. The appellant's appeal was partially successful in reducing the redemption fine while keeping the penalty unchanged.