9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against order confirming confiscation of export consignment due to weight discrepancy, contravention of Customs Act provisions, misdeclaration in shipping bill, applicability of DEEC scheme, and imposition of penalty.
Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order confirming the confiscation of an export consignment due to discrepancies in the declared weight of tyres and tubes. The appellants admitted the weight shortage but attributed it to a consistent malfunction in their weighing scale. The Dy. Collector invoked Section 113(d)(i) of the Customs Act and para 3(3) of the Export (Control) Order 1988, leading to the confiscation order. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the decision, citing Section 50(2) of the Customs Act for improper declaration. The appellants sought to amend the shipping bill, emphasizing the minimal nature of the weight differences and the compliance with the DEEC scheme on prior exports. The advocate argued that the weight discrepancies were insignificant and did not warrant confiscation or penalty under Section 113(d) and (i) of the Act. 2. The advocate for the appellants contended that the weight differences were marginal, amounting to 1.6% for tyres with tubes and 3.6% for tubes alone. He highlighted that the duty evasion, if any, was minimal and emphasized the overall compliance with the DEEC scheme based on prior exports. The advocate argued that the Collector (Appeals) overlooked crucial data supporting the appellants' position, and the weight discrepancies, in the context of the total exports under the DEEC license, were immaterial. He asserted that the contravention of Section 50(2) of the Customs Act was not substantial, and the provisions of Section 113(d) and (i) should not apply given the circumstances of the case. 3. The Department's representative contended that the misdeclaration of weight in the shipping bill constituted a violation of Section 50(2) of the Customs Act, justifying the confiscation and penalty under Section 113(i). He argued that the attempt to export goods not in conformity with the DEEC scheme invoked Section 113(d) as well. The representative opposed the appellants' plea to consider the total weighment in the appellate stage, stating that such an argument was not raised earlier and fell outside the Tribunal's scope for review. 4. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the invocation of Section 113(d) was unwarranted as there was no prohibition on exporting the goods in question. The Tribunal acknowledged the misdeclaration in the shipping bill but deemed the quantity negligible. It emphasized the need to assess whether the appellants had exceeded the licensed export quantity under the DEEC scheme, which required a comprehensive examination of the prior exports. The Tribunal determined that a remand to the Collector (Appeals) was necessary to consider the DEEC book examination and all relevant evidence to determine if confiscation and penalty were justified. The appeal was allowed for remand, with a directive for the expeditious disposal of the matter within six months.
|
