1995 (10) TMI 143 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Over-valuation of export goods.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Imposition of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

1. Over-valuation of Export Goods:
The appellants filed four Shipping Bills for exporting Mulberry Silk Printed Ties, declaring a high value. The Department suspected over-valuation based on local market prices obtained from M/s. Mohan's and M/s. Handloom House, which indicated much lower prices. The Department alleged over-valuation and issued a show cause notice for penalties u/s 113(d) and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellants argued that the valuation method u/s 14 of the Customs Act does not apply as the goods were not dutiable. The Tribunal agreed, citing a previous decision (Collector of Customs, Kandla v. Dimple Overseas Ltd.), which held that Section 14 applies only when customs duty is chargeable. Since the exported goods were not subject to duty, the Department's valuation method was deemed inapplicable.

3. Applicability of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal found that Section 113(d), which deals with the confiscation of goods attempted to be exported contrary to any prohibition, was not applicable. The goods were not prohibited, and there was no specific law contravened by their export. The Tribunal noted that the correct section, if any, would be Section 113(i), which pertains to dutiable or prohibited goods entered for exportation under a claim for drawback. However, since the goods were neither dutiable nor prohibited, Section 113(i) was also inapplicable.

4. Imposition of Penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal concluded that penalties u/s 114 could not be imposed as the goods were not liable for confiscation u/s 113. Section 114 penalties apply only if the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 113, which was not the case here. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had realized the full export value in foreign exchange through proper legal channels, which further negated the grounds for penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants, allowing the appeals. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 24-10-1995.