9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 740 - AT - CustomsPenalty - U/S 114 of the Act - Held that - It is a case of mis-declaration of value and description of goods fro claiming undue export benefit. We have noticed that the goods have already been exported. After considering the submission of the learned counsel and the facts of the case we modify the impugned order insofar as by reducing the penalty to Rs.50, 000/- in Appeal No. C/108/2004 and Rs.75, 000/- in Appeal No. C/109/2004 respectively and otherwise the impugned order is upheld.
Issues involved: Mis-declaration of value and description of goods for claiming undue export benefit, imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, confiscation of goods already exported.
Analysis: 1. Mis-declaration of value and description of goods: The appeals involved a common issue of mis-declaration of value and description of goods for claiming undue export benefit. The appellant contested the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, highlighting that the adjudicating authority rejected the declared FOB value for the fixation of DEPB credit and confiscated the goods that were already exported. The Tribunal acknowledged the mis-declaration but noted that the goods had already been exported, leading to a modification of the penalty amount. 2. Imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962: The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that confiscation and penalty were not sustainable since the goods had already been exported. The Tribunal considered the gravity of the offense and the submissions from both sides. Ultimately, the penalty was reduced to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.75,000/- in the respective appeals, citing the already completed export of the goods as a factor in the decision. 3. Confiscation of goods already exported: The issue of confiscation of goods that had already been exported was raised by the appellant to contest the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal took into account the fact that the goods in question had already been exported and adjusted the penalty amounts accordingly. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order with modifications, reducing the penalties imposed while maintaining the essence of the decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of mis-declaration of goods, imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, and the confiscation of goods already exported. The penalties were reduced considering the circumstances of the case, where the goods had already been exported. The Tribunal disposed of both appeals by modifying the penalties but upholding the essence of the impugned order.
|
