1990 (6) TMI 149 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur regarding re-import of goods under Section 20 CA-1962.
- Allegation by the department that the identity of the re-imported goods was not established.
- Imposition of a fine of Rs. 10,000 on the appellants by the Collector.
- Question of penalizing the importers for misdeclaration of contents.
- Request for permission to re-export the consignment on payment of a token fine.
- Discrepancy between the re-exported goods and the goods originally exported.
- Consideration of the violation of the Import and Export (Control) Act and the Customs Act.
- Evaluation of whether the fine imposed on the appellants was justified.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi concerns the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur's order regarding the re-import of goods under Section 20 CA-1962. The appellants had exported cut and polished stones on approval basis, and upon the importer returning certain lots, the appellants filed a Bill of Entry for re-import. The department alleged that the identity of the re-imported goods was not established, leading to the imposition of a fine of Rs. 10,000 on the appellants by the Collector. The appellants contended that the Bill of Entry was filed based on information from the exporter, and the goods were re-exported after the discrepancy was noted. The Collector acknowledged the importers' bona fides and attributed the error to the consignment agent's negligence.

The department emphasized that the re-exported goods did not match the originally exported goods in terms of quantity and weight, leading to a violation of the Customs Act and the Import and Export (Control) Act. Despite allowing re-export on payment of a nominal fine, the department opposed setting aside the fine. The Tribunal observed that the Collector rightly found the goods' identity was not established and the Bill of Entry lacked a true declaration. However, as there was no evidence of intentional misdeclaration, the violation was deemed technical and unintentional. The Tribunal agreed that the Collector's decision to allow re-export indicated a case of carelessness or negligence rather than deliberate violation, warranting the setting aside of the fine.

In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the Collector's order to set aside the fine imposed on the appellants, considering the technical and unintentional nature of the violation. The appeal was accepted based on the findings of the Collector regarding the bona fides of the appellants and the inadvertent nature of the error.