9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abrics. The shortage was around 3.45% in the case of goods tendered by Gupta Synthetics Ltd. and 7.39% in the case of Gupta Dyeing and Printing. The goods were provisionally permitted to be exported. Subsequently, however, proceedings were commenced on the ground that they were liable for confiscation under clause (d) of Section 113 read with clause (3) of Section 3 of the Export Trade (Control) Order and the exporters liable to penalty. The exporters waived issue of show cause notice and were heard. The Commissioner passed orders holding the goods in each case liable to confiscation under clause (d) of Section 113, ordering recovery of Rs. 2.00 lacs in the case of appropriation of Rs. 10.00 lacs in lieu of fine bond executed by Gupta Dying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned. What we have to see is therefore whether the provisions of clause (3) of Section 3 of the Export Trade (Control) Order will apply. This clause deems to be prohibited for export goods the value, sort specification, quality and description is not in conformity with the declaration of the exporter, or quality and specifications of which are not in accordance with the terms of the export contract . 5. Clause (3) of Section 3 of the Export Trade (Control) Order, 1988 has been invoked on the ground that the weight of the goods did not tally with the declaration. The words used in clause 3(3) of the Order are value, sort specification, quality and description. It is not possible to agree that misdeclaration of weight where such weight i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export any commodity, in respect of which it would apply notwithstanding that its export may otherwise be permitted in the policy. The words value, sort specification, quality, description that we have referred to therefore must not be confined to a narrow interpretation. They must be so interpreted as to give effect to this clause. In doing so, we are of the view that there has been misdeclaration of the goods in the present case. It is relevant to take note at this juncture of the fact that the declaration with regard to the goods assumes significance because the export was under the DEEC scheme. The import licence permitting the import duty free in consequence of the export would be expressed in terms of weight. The import of yarn for w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products are only those permitted in accordance with the weight as found does not hold the appellant. The question is not now permitted to be imported based on what was exported but what would have been permitted to be imported if the brand of the fine would have found. 10. The goods were therefore liable to confiscation and penalty is imposable. We however find that the penalties and fine are somewhat excessive. The duty involved on the difference between the weight declared and found is Rs. 46,000/- approx. in the case of Gupta Synthetics (Application 336) and Rs. 4.22 lakhs on Gupta Dyeing (Application 334). The quantity found short in terms of percentage is 4% of the first appellant and 7% of the second. Taking these factor into accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
