1991 (2) TMI 240 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Section 113 and Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Misdeclaration of quantity and value of goods for export.
Imposition of penalties under Section 113(d) and Section 114 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order confiscating goods valued at Rs. 2,34,680 under Section 113 of the Customs Act, along with the imposition of a redemption fine and personal penalty. The appellants had presented woollen garments for export, but discrepancies were found in the quantity and value declared compared to the actual goods inspected by Customs. The Collector rejected the appellants' explanations for misdeclaration and under-valuation, leading to the confiscation order.

The key legal provisions discussed included Section 67 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. The judgment highlighted that under Section 67, the prohibition imposed under Section 18(l)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act translates to a prohibition under Section 11 of the Customs Act. Therefore, any attempt to export goods contrary to such prohibition renders the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, with penalties under Section 114 also applicable.

The Collector's findings revealed misdeclaration in both quantity and value, with the appellants' explanations of negligence and market competition deemed insufficient to excuse the violations. Citing precedent from the Supreme Court, the judgment emphasized the applicability of Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act in cases of attempted export contrary to prohibitions, reinforcing the Collector's decision to confiscate the goods and impose penalties.

Further, the judgment addressed the arguments raised by the appellants' counsel, asserting that previous judgments cited were no longer valid law in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The contention that Section 113 was not applicable was ultimately rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment underscored the importance of compliance with export regulations and the consequences of attempting to export goods in violation of prohibitions, affirming the Collector's actions in this case.