1999 (4) TMI 421 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Mis-declaration in shipping bill, Confiscation of goods, Redemption fine, Penalty imposition, Intention to evade duty, Labour unrest causing mis-declaration.

Mis-declaration in shipping bill:
The case involved an appeal against the order confirming the redemption fine and penalty imposed due to mis-declaration in a shipping bill. The appellant had declared goods as 'Nut/bolts/screw made of stainless steel variety-X' but upon physical examination, it was found to be shoulder bolts of magnetic type instead. The authorities below had ordered confiscation of the goods based on this mis-declaration.

Confiscation of goods:
The authorities below had confirmed the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Dy. Commissioner due to the mis-declaration in the shipping bill. The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade duty and that the mis-declaration was caused by some staff members intentionally to create trouble for the appellant. However, the Tribunal found that mis-declaration had indeed occurred, leading to the confiscation of goods.

Redemption fine and Penalty imposition:
The appellant contended that the penalty and redemption fine were unjust considering their past record of being a significant manufacturer and exporter with a clean history. The Tribunal noted the value of the goods, the mis-declaration, and the penalty imposed, ultimately concluding that the penalty amount was not excessive given the circumstances.

Intention to evade duty:
The appellant claimed that the mis-declaration was not intentional and was due to the labor unrest in their factory at the time. However, the Tribunal found that despite the mitigating circumstances, mis-declaration had taken place, and the appellant would have benefited financially if the mis-declaration had not been detected.

Labour unrest causing mis-declaration:
The appellant argued that the mis-declaration was a result of intentional mischief by some staff members during a period of labor unrest in their factory. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument but emphasized that the mis-declaration still held the appellant legally liable, regardless of the circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal based on the established mis-declaration and the penalty imposed.

Overall, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the order confirming the redemption fine and penalty imposed due to the mis-declaration in the shipping bill. Despite the appellant's arguments regarding lack of intention to evade duty and the circumstances surrounding the mis-declaration, the Tribunal found the penalty amount reasonable given the value of the goods and the established mis-declaration.