1986 (8) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged misdeclaration of export goods by IATA approved Air Cargo Agents leading to confiscation and penalties.
2. Imposition of penalties on the appellants for acts of omission and commission in rendering goods liable to confiscation.
3. Contention regarding the responsibility of Shipping Agents in ensuring correct declaration of goods.
4. Consideration of appeals and judgments in similar cases to determine penalty imposition and confiscation of goods.

Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the case of IATA approved Air Cargo Agents who allegedly misdeclared export goods, leading to confiscation and penalties. The Customs Officer found discrepancies between the contents of the packages and the description in the Shipping Bills, resulting in the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines on the exporter and the appellants.

2. The main contention raised by the learned Consultant for the appellants was that they prepared the Shipping Bills based on information provided by the exporter and had no knowledge of the misdeclaration. The appellants argued that they had no role in the misdeclaration and should not be penalized. The Tribunal considered previous judgments and found that the penalty imposition on the exporter was not justified due to a genuine mistake, leading to the appeal being partly allowed and the penalty on the appellants being set aside.

3. On the other hand, the respondent argued that as Shipping Agents, the appellants had a responsibility to ensure the correct declaration of goods in the Shipping Bills. The respondent contended that the appellants could not evade responsibility by claiming lack of knowledge when handling the documentation. However, the Tribunal considered the circumstances and found that the penalty imposition on the appellants was not justified in the absence of direct evidence against them.

4. The Tribunal considered previous judgments, including the case of M/s. Lemuir Air Express, to determine the penalty imposition and confiscation of goods. It was observed that the misdeclaration was due to a genuine mistake and not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the penalty on the appellants, and reduced the redemption fine for the exporter. The Tribunal emphasized the need for caution for the appellants in their role as Air Cargo Agents based on past instances.