2000 (11) TMI 265 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Section 113(d) and 113(i) for attempted improper export.
2. Imposition of penalties under Section 114 on various parties involved.
3. Compliance with CHA regulations and liability of CHA in the case.

Confiscation of Goods:
The case involved four shipping bills for readymade garments filed by the exporter, which were later found to contain different goods than declared. The Customs officers discovered discrepancies in the quantity and value of the goods during examination. The Commissioner initiated proceedings alleging an attempt to export goods under false declarations to claim benefits. Confiscation orders were issued without specifying the relevant sections. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that the goods were not 'Export Goods' as defined under the Customs Act, 1962, on the date of the incident. Therefore, liability for confiscation under Section 113(d) did not apply. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation orders based on this finding.

Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties were imposed under Section 114 on the exporter, the Managing Director of the Customs House Agent (CHA), and a Director employee of the CHA. The appellants argued that the penalties were not justified as they promptly informed the Customs officers about the incorrect consignment and sought permission for re-packing. The Tribunal considered the explanations provided by the parties and found that the penalties imposed were not warranted. As the goods were not liable for confiscation, the Tribunal set aside all penalties imposed under Section 114.

Compliance with CHA Regulations:
The case also involved the liability of the CHA and its employees in complying with regulations. The appellants contended that they acted within the prescribed agency terms and promptly notified the Customs authorities about the incorrect consignment. The Tribunal noted that the CHA had advised re-packing of goods and informed the authorities about the situation. The allegations of forgery against one of the employees were not substantiated. Therefore, the Tribunal found no grounds to take action against the CHA, its directors, or employees. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.