2024 (7) TMI 1365 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of export goods - imposition of redemption fine and penalty - intentional mis-declaration on export goods with intent to avail higher rate of drawback, or not - HELD THAT - Only few goods were found to be mismatched with the invoice and packing list. It is further found that the Appellant had given cogent explanation based on the statement and clarification of the shipper, via letter, clarifying that due to a large variety of goods being packed, the error occurred at the time of preparing the invoice, resulting in some mismatch which is not deliberate. Thus, there is no case of any deliberate mis-declaration on the part of the Appellant (exporter) who had filed the Bill of Entry declaring the goods under export as per the invoice and packing list. Accordingly, the allegation of mis-classification mis-declaration on the part of the Appellant is set aside. Since there is no willful mis-classification or mis-declaration on the part of the Appellant, the order for confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine is not sustainable in law. The confiscation of the export goods cannot sustain and it is hereby set aside. Penalty imposed on the Appellant is unwarranted - the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Confiscation of export goods, imposition of redemption fine, penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Confiscation of Export Goods:
The appeal was filed against the confiscation of export goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing and export of rugs/carpets/bathmats, had filed a shipping Bill for export. Discrepancies were found in the description of goods on the label/tag attached to the actual goods, leading to a higher rate of Drawback being claimed. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the goods and imposed fines and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and fines, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Mis-Declaration and Explanation:
The appellant argued that there was no intentional mis-declaration, attributing the discrepancies to inadvertent clerical errors. They explained that multiple articles with different compositions were mentioned in the invoice and were tested accordingly. The appellant clarified that the misclassification was due to clerical mistakes and not deliberate mis-declaration. They submitted revised documents and requested amendments to rectify the errors. The Tribunal found that there was no deliberate mis-declaration by the appellant.

Legal Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal reviewed the case and found that only a few goods were mismatched with the invoice and packing list. Considering the explanation provided by the appellant and the lack of conclusive evidence of intentional misclassification, the Tribunal concluded that there was no deliberate mis-declaration. The impugned order failed to establish any willful misclassification or mis-declaration by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the confiscation of export goods and imposition of penalties were not sustainable in law. As a result, the confiscation was set aside, and the penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed unwarranted. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the confiscation of export goods and the imposed penalties. The decision highlighted the lack of deliberate mis-declaration by the appellant and emphasized the importance of providing cogent explanations in cases of discrepancies to avoid unwarranted penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.