2018 (1) TMI 1097 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of goods - PP woven fabrics - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - appellant has filed the wrong declaration with regard to the export of goods mentioned in the bill of export inasmuch as against 16 rolls of PP woven fabrics, only 12 rolls of PP woven fabrics and 4 rolls of FIBC were actually loaded for export. Thus, it is the case of mis-declaration of the goods and accordingly, Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 is attracted for confiscation of goods and for imposition of redemption fine. Penalty u/s 11AC of the CEA 1944 - Held that - the authorities below have not specifically brought out any evidence to show the mala fides of the appellant in defrauding the government revenue. Since wrong filing of declaration is due to the lapses of the concerned person and is not attributable to any suppression, fraud, collusion etc., penalty set aside. Penalty u/s 114 of the CA, 1962 - Held that - the order imposing penalty on the appellants u/s 114 of the CA, 1962 cannot be interfered with at this juncture, for the reason that both the appellants have admitted that the declaration was incorrectly filed in comparison with the goods actually loaded into the vehicle for export - penalty justified. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
- Mis-declaration of goods
- Confiscation of goods
- Imposition of redemption fine
- Central Excise duty demand
- Penalties imposed under various sections

Mis-declaration of Goods:
The case involved mis-declaration of goods during export, where the appellant declared 16 rolls of PP woven fabrics but only 12 rolls of PP woven fabrics and 4 rolls of FIBC were actually loaded. This mis-declaration led to the confiscation of goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal acknowledged the mis-declaration and reduced the redemption fine imposed on the appellant company from ?1,89,960 to ?30,000 in the interest of justice.

Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine:
Due to the mis-declaration of goods, the authorities proceeded with the confiscation of goods and imposed a redemption fine on the appellant company. The Tribunal found the redemption fine to be excessive considering the quantity of seized finished goods of FIBC. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced from ?1,89,960 to ?30,000 under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Central Excise Duty Demand:
The appellant did not contest the Central Excise duty demand of ?23,479 confirmed against it under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted this aspect but focused on the contested issues related to the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties.

Penalties Imposed Under Various Sections:
The penalties imposed on the appellant company under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were set aside as there was no evidence of mala fides or intentional wrongdoing to defraud government revenue. However, the penalties imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 were upheld since both appellants admitted to incorrectly filing the declaration for export. The Tribunal found that the penalties under Section 114 were justified in this context. Overall, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals based on the above considerations, providing detailed reasoning for each issue addressed in the judgment.