9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 463 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty and redemption fine - Classification of export goods under MEIS scheme - misdeclaration of Country of Origin in the export document so as to claim the export incentives under MEIS - whether the classification of Blood Glucose Test Strips was mis-declared as CTH 30069100 instead of the correct CTH 38220090? - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT - The appellant made a wrong claim of export benefit under MEIS, being mis-advised by the CHA. However, it was the responsibility of the appellant to understand the eligibility and the conditions before making a claim for the export benefits. However, in the facts and circumstances, that the goods were not prohibited goods, it is found that the fine and penalty are on the higher side. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified - Redemption fine is reduced from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh - Penalty under Section 114(iii) is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues involved:
Mis-declaration of country of origin in export documents for claiming export incentives under MEIS scheme, confiscation of goods, penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, redemption fine, proportionality of penalties imposed. Analysis: Issue 1: Mis-declaration of country of origin The appellant mis-declared the country of origin of goods in export documents to claim export incentives under the MEIS scheme, contravening Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Adjudicating Authority held that the appellant falsely declared the goods as of Indian origin to claim MEIS benefits. The goods were found to be of foreign origin, leading to confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Act and imposition of penalties under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA. Issue 2: Confiscation of goods and penalties The Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation of goods with an FOB value of Rs. 25,50,422 under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with packing material, offering an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 4,00,000. Penalties of Rs. 50,000 each were imposed under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA. The appellant appealed, citing lack of awareness regarding the foreign origin of goods and reliance on advice from a CHA for claiming MEIS benefits. Issue 3: Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) The appellant contended that the goods were purchased without knowledge of foreign origin, and the mis-declaration was unintentional, urging for a reduction in penalties considering the low gravity of the offense. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalties but set aside the penalty under Section 114AA, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 4: Tribunal's decision The Tribunal recognized the appellant's erroneous claim under MEIS due to advice from the CHA but emphasized the appellant's responsibility to understand eligibility criteria. Considering the non-prohibited nature of goods, the Tribunal found the penalties excessive. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh, and the penalty under Section 114(iii) was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, modifying the impugned order for the sake of justice. This judgment highlights the consequences of mis-declaration in export documents and the importance of due diligence in claiming export benefits. It also underscores the Tribunal's discretion in assessing penalty proportionality based on the gravity of the offense and circumstances of the case.
|
