1996 (12) TMI 238 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the negative list of imports for export goods.
2. Misdeclaration of goods and its consequences under Section 50(2).
3. Confiscation of goods under Section 113(d) for misdeclaration.
4. Procedural requirements for confiscation and waiver of notice.
5. Applicability of Section 113(d) in cases of goods permitted for export.
6. Compliance with Foreign Trade Development Rules and Customs Act for export goods.
7. Imposition of penalty for misdeclaration of goods.
8. Removal of goods from port and its impact on export proceedings.

Analysis:
The appellate tribunal reviewed a case where the Commissioner of Customs had initially held that goods described as teak flooring panels could not be exported and ordered their confiscation. The tribunal remanded the case to determine if the goods fell within the exception to the prohibition in the negative list of imports. The appeal challenged the subsequent order of the Commissioner regarding the export of sawn teak timber, which was initially misdeclared as teak flooring panels. The Commissioner allowed the export of goods to Bombay port under certain conditions from Nhava Sheva, imposing a fine and penalty due to misdeclaration.

The Departmental representative argued for the confiscation based on misdeclaration, but the tribunal found that no notice was issued for confiscation on this ground. The initial proceedings did not focus on misdeclaration, and the order lacked findings on notice issuance or waiver. Subsequently, the tribunal determined that even if notice was given, confiscation under Section 113(d) was not justified as the goods were permitted for export under exceptions to the prohibition. Compliance with Foreign Trade Development Rules and Customs Act requirements for export goods was emphasized, stating that misdeclaration did not render the goods liable for confiscation if export was not prohibited.

The appellant's advocate mentioned the removal of goods from Nhava Sheva port due to shipping delays, negating the need for export. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, highlighting the unsustainable confiscation and penalty due to misdeclaration. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance, exceptions to export prohibitions, and the correctness of information for export goods, ultimately allowing the appeal and providing for consequential relief.