9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment only 9,082 kgs. (in 400 bags) of Zinc Oxide were found to have been produced for exportation as against the declared quantity of 2,500 kgs., that the said quantity of 9,082 kgs. of the goods was seized by the Customs officers who believed that the goods were attempted to be improperly exported and hence liable to confiscation, that the appellants waived show-cause notice and presented themselves for personal hearing on 30-11-1998, that upon such hearing the Dy. Commissioner of Customs passed order dated 7-12-1998 confiscating the aforesaid 9,082 kgs. of Zinc Oxide under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act with option for redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and also imposing on the party penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 114 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of export goods for fraudulent purpose of higher drawback. Regarding the finding of the lower authorities that the appellants had even mis-declared the weight of Zinc Oxide contained in the 400 bags, the Counsel submits that the weight of the goods in their factory could not be taken on account of their weighbridge being out of order and the same was, therefore, taken on a weighbridge outside the factory as evidenced by copies of the certificates dated 26-11-1998 issued by M/s. Eastern Dharam Kanta available on record. Counsel submits that the appellants were willing for reconciling any such difference in weight found at the ICD by accepting the Customs weighment results and that such willingness was duly intimated to the officers by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examination and weightment of the goods at the ICD that they tried to cover up the matter by bringing the 200 bags to the ICD on the next day. There was no satisfactory answer to the charge of mis-declaration of quantity of export goods in the Shipping Bills. Therefore, ld. JDR submits, the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the appellants were quite justifiable. He prays for rejecting the appeal. 5. I have carefully examined the submissions. Section 50 of the Customs Act requires presentation, by exporter, of a Shipping Bill for the purpose of exportation of his goods in any vessel or aircraft. While presenting such Shipping Bill, the exporter shall make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of the contents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion against the Shipping Bill. In other words, a fraudulent attempt to claim higher drawback to the extent of Rs. 1,37,016/- by mis-declaring the quantity of Zinc Oxide in the Shipping Bill is manifest on the face of even the admitted facts of the case. Shri Yadav s statement does not appear to have cleared the position any better. I am, therefore, not able to find fault with the decision of the lower authorities to confiscate the aforesaid quantity of 9,082 kgs. of Zinc Oxide and to penalise the exporter. Further, having regard to the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, I find that the quantum of redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation is only reasonable. However, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs appears to be harsher than what i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
