9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of goods 2. Prohibition under Export Control Order 3. Valuation and under-invoicing 4. Mens rea and penalties Detailed Analysis: 1. Misdeclaration of Goods: The appellants argued that the description of the goods in the shipping bills and invoices were identical, thus there could be no mistaken identity or misdeclaration. However, the tribunal found that the appellants failed to indicate the value, specification, quality, and description of the goods in the shipping bill and other documents, which is a statutory obligation under the Export Control Order 1977 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The tribunal noted that the goods were seized based on a reasonable belief of violation of these provisions. 2. Prohibition under Export Control Order: The appellants contended that the goods were not prohibited under the Export Control Order or any other orders, and there was no statutory definition provided for the items in question. However, the tribunal emphasized that under Clause 13 of the Export Control Order, exporters are required to furnish accurate details about the value, sort, specifications, quality, and description of the goods. The tribunal found that the appellants' failure to provide these details constituted a contravention, making the export of such goods prohibited. 3. Valuation and Under-invoicing: The appellants argued that the market enquiries conducted by the authorities were conjectural and that the Customs authorities could not question the valuation when the Reserve Bank of India and Excise authorities had not disputed it. The tribunal, however, upheld the findings of the adjudicating authority, which were based on market enquiries, expert opinions, and comparisons with similar export consignments. The tribunal noted that the appellants did not challenge these findings during the proceedings and failed to provide evidence to counter the under-invoicing allegations. The tribunal also cited Section 14 of the Customs Act, which deals with the valuation of goods for assessment purposes. 4. Mens Rea and Penalties: The appellants claimed that the adjudicating authority failed to prove mens rea, which would vitiate the impugned order. They also argued that the penalties were excessive and harsh. The tribunal, however, found that the appellants had mens rea, as evidenced by their failure to provide accurate details and their past activities of undervaluation. The tribunal dismissed the argument that there was no need for an exporter to undervalue goods, stating that the issue was whether under-invoicing was proven based on the available materials. The tribunal confirmed the fine and penalty imposed, deeming them neither harsh nor excessive. Separate Judgments: The tribunal dismissed appeal No. 88/85 filed by M/s. United Veneers (P) Ltd., confirming the fine and penalty. Appeals 97/85 and 98/85 filed by K.S. Simon and John Philipose were dismissed as not maintainable since no penalty or fine was imposed on them. Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the order of the Collector of Customs, Cochin, imposing a redemption fine and penalty on the appellants for contravening the provisions of the Customs Act, Export Control Order, and Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide accurate details about the goods, which constituted misdeclaration and under-invoicing, and confirmed the penalties imposed.
|
