2015 (2) TMI 420 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre deposit - Imposition of Penalty u/s 114 - Misdeclaration of goods - Held that - It is clear case of mis-declaration in the shipping bill No.64 dated 9.5.2011 for export of handicraft/furniture not used after manufacture. The shipping bill under claim of drawback was filed by him on his own as it is the work of CHA where it was not in the knowledge of the exporter. The goods were found to be old and used and purchased from the open market and claim of drawback was later on withdrawn by the exporter. This clearly brings out that without knowledge of the exporter, the appellant has been made claim of drawback by mis-declaring the handicraft/furniture as antique. All these facts clearly pointed out mens-rea leading to fraudulent intent to avail drawback. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a liberal view and reduced penalty. - No ground to reduce penalty for the pre-deposit - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Reduction of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 based on mis-declaration in shipping bill and fraudulent intent to avail drawback.

Analysis:
The appeal was made against the Order-in-Appeal reducing the penalty imposed on an individual under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant claimed not to be involved in the mis-declaration, attributing the responsibility to the Customs House Agent (CHA) and its G.Card holder. It was highlighted that the CHA and G.Card holder were not present during the investigation, and a casual worker, who was the brother of the appellant, was involved in the customs area activities. However, the Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the facts presented by the appellant's counsel did not align with the records. The case involved mis-declaration in a shipping bill for export of handicraft/furniture, which was later found to be old and used goods purchased from the open market. The appellant was accused of making a claim of drawback by mis-declaring the goods as antique without the exporter's knowledge, indicating fraudulent intent to avail drawback. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already substantially reduced the penalty, considering the circumstances and the evidence of mens-rea leading to fraudulent intent.

The judge, Mr. Manmohan Singh, found no grounds to further reduce the penalty for pre-deposit and dismissed the stay application. The appellant was directed to deposit the reduced penalty amount of Rs. 1 lakh within four weeks, with the remaining penalty amount waived until the appeal's disposal. The compliance deadline was set for 23.02.2015. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the penalty requirements and the consequences of non-compliance with the directive.