2018 (1) TMI 498 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of export goods - prohibited goods - Brown Chick Peas - non-Basmati Rice - coriander seeds - Held that - admittedly there was mis-declaration in respect of description as also quantity of the goods. There is no explanation by the appellant as to why the Chick Peas were not declared as brown Chick Peas by them and as to why non-Basmati rice was declared as Basmati rice - Further no explanation is coming forward from the appellant as regards the excess quantum of Coriander seeds - the confiscation of the goods in question is justified. Redemption fine - penalty - Held that - redemption fine is to an event of 30% and there is no discussion about the margin of profit in the said goods. In the absence of the same, the quantum of redemption fine seems to be on the higher side and accordingly the same is reduced to 20% in toto of the value of the goods - the penalty imposed upon the exporting firm does not seem to be on the higher side and is accordingly maintained. Penalty on the Director - Held that - the exporting firm has already been penalized and as such separate imposition of penalty on the Director would not be justified. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of exported goods, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of penalties, Quantum of redemption fine

In this judgment delivered by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member(Judicial) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issues revolved around mis-declaration of goods during export, resulting in confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and determination of the quantum of redemption fine. The case involved M/s. Nima Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., engaged in exporting spices and other items, who declared goods inaccurately in their shipping bill. The discrepancies included exporting banned items like brown Chick Peas and non-Basmati rice, as well as misstating the quantity of Coriander Seeds. The authorities initiated proceedings leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the exporting firm and the Director. The judgment analyzed the arguments presented by both sides regarding the mis-declaration and intention behind the discrepancies.

The appellant's consultant argued that the mis-declaration was unintentional, relying on the broker's opinion for the type of rice and claiming ignorance about the banned items. They contested the high redemption fines imposed, stating it did not consider profit margins. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative highlighted the Director's statement acknowledging awareness of the banned exports, supporting the confiscation and redemption fine. The judgment scrutinized the explanations provided by the appellant and the lack of justification for the mis-declaration, leading to a decision on the confiscation of goods.

After evaluating the submissions, the judgment acknowledged the mis-declaration and lack of satisfactory explanations from the appellant, justifying the confiscation of the goods. However, it found the redemption fine excessive at 30% without considering profit margins, thus reducing it to 20% of the goods' value. The penalty imposed on the exporting firm was deemed appropriate and maintained. Regarding the penalty on the Director, it was overturned considering the firm's existing penalty. The judgment concluded by disposing of both appeals based on the outlined decisions, ensuring a fair balance between penalties, redemption fines, and confiscation of goods.

In summary, the judgment addressed issues of mis-declaration during export, resulting in confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and the determination of redemption fines. It emphasized the importance of accurate declarations and provided a balanced decision considering the circumstances and arguments presented by both parties.