9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration in the 3 Shipping Bills regarding the quantity to be exported. 2. Duty demand on 16,472.205 Kgs of imported cotton yarn found in excess in the factory premises and the associated redemption fine. 3. Penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the earlier shipping bill. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Misdeclaration in the 3 Shipping Bills The appellants were found to have misdeclared the quantity of goods in three shipping bills, leading to the confiscation of 6,021 sets of cotton knitted to shape sweater panels under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the deficiency was significant and intentional, not a mere packing error. The misdeclaration involved both quantity and value, making the goods "prohibited" under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act and Clause 3(3) of the Export Control Order No. 1/88 ETC, dated 30-3-1988. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and the redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- as well as the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, considering these actions fair and reasonable. Issue 2: Duty Demand on Excess Imported Cotton Yarn The appellants argued that the excess cotton yarn found in their factory was legally imported under Customs Notification No. 263/85 and that they had a one-year period to account for or re-export the excess stock. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, noting that the one-year period had not expired at the time of the show-cause notice. Therefore, the demand for duty and the confiscation of the yarn were deemed premature. The Tribunal ordered that the appellants should re-export the excess yarn within three months or pay the amount equal to the duty within seven days after the three-month period, after which the goods could be cleared for home consumption. The confiscation and redemption fine on the excess yarn were set aside. Issue 3: Penalty on Earlier Shipping Bill The Tribunal found no strong evidence to support the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the earlier shipping bill. The presence of excess yarn in the factory did not automatically imply that earlier shipments were deficient. There was no corroborative evidence such as complaints from foreign buyers or discrepancies in bank remittances. Therefore, the penalty was set aside. Conclusion: 1. Misdeclaration in Shipping Bills: The confiscation of 6,021 sets of sweater panels and the associated penalties were upheld. 2. Duty Demand on Excess Yarn: The demand for duty and the confiscation of 16,472.205 Kgs of excess yarn were set aside, with conditions for re-export or payment. 3. Penalty on Earlier Shipping Bill: The penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs was set aside due to lack of evidence. The order was modified accordingly, and the appeal succeeded partially.
|
