2019 (10) TMI 1055 - AT - Customs

Difference in weighment of export goods - Advance license scheme - export fulfillment obligation - appellant filed shipping bill on 27.01.2016 for export of these Stainless Steel Seamless Pipes by declaring a weight of goods as 33.478 MT. However, on actual weighment the goods were found to be 30.740 MT, thus there was a difference of 2.738 MT - Confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT - Appreciating the fact that such consignments were being exported in fulfilment of the export obligation, and the weight declared by the appellant was found to be slightly on the higher side and there being no difference in the earlier consignments and appreciating the fact that such difference was only 10%, there is no justification for the confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Alleged misdeclaration in export consignment leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appellants were working under the Advance Licence Scheme and imported raw materials for export fulfilment obligation. A discrepancy was found in the weight declared for export of 'Stainless Steel Seamless Pipes' compared to the actual weighment, resulting in a difference of 2.738 MT.

2. Proceedings were initiated for misdeclaration, leading to the original authority's order for confiscation of goods with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of &8377;10 lakhs and imposition of a penalty of &8377;5 lakhs.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the orders but reduced the redemption fine to &8377;5 lakhs and the penalty to &8377;2.5 lakhs. The appellant appealed this decision before the Tribunal.

4. The appellant argued that they regularly exported the pipes to fulfil obligations, attributing the discrepancy to the difference in measurement units between the shipping bills and foreign buyers' orders. They claimed the 10% difference fell within the tolerance limit and requested setting aside the order.

5. The Revenue's representative argued that the admitted weight difference justified the confiscation and penalty.

6. The Tribunal acknowledged the export obligation fulfilment, noted the slight weight discrepancy, and observed no significant differences in earlier consignments. Considering the 10% difference within tolerance limits, the Tribunal found no justification for confiscation or penalty, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with relief to the appellant.