9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner was also confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The allegation against the appellant is that they had mis-declared in their shipping bill dated 27-10-1997, 93,800 pieces of Nut/bolts/screw made of stainless steel variety-X and valued at Rs. 4,33,775/-FOB. The subject export was not discharged by Export Obligation against the quantity based advance licence and DEEC Book. In terms of the advance licence and DEEC, the appellants was required to export the goods made out of stainless steel variety -X . On physical examination of the goods, it was found that the goods were actually shoulder bolts instead of nuts/bolts/screws and of magnetic type whereas goods made from stainless steel variety X should be non-magnetic in nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave also been awarded Outstanding Export Performance Certificate by the Government. Their record had been without blemish in the preceding 15 years. Having regard to this factors, the appellants should not have been visited with the penalty. The quantum of redemption fine should also have been much less, if at all, pleaded ld. Counsel. 4. Ld. JDR Shri T. Arunachalam, defending the impugned order submitted that the appellants have not disputed the fact that the shipping bill containing entries which were not correct and did not correspond to the goods actually submitted to be exported. He draw attention to the findings of Dy. Commissioner and stated that but for the detection of the mis-declaration by the appellants they would have availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act that mis-declaration has taken place and the appellants would have been able to avail of the benefit of Rs. 1,95,000/- if the mis-declaration had not been detected and the export would have been allowed. Even apart from any proof of mala fide intention on the part of the appellants, it is not in dispute nor is denied by the appellants, that mis-declaration as alleged had taken place. The mitigating circumstances of labour unrest in the appellants' factory during the relevant period and the possible mischief played by the staff of the appellant does not in any way reduce the legal liability of the appellants for the mis-declaration in the shipping bill. The contravention of Section 50(4) of the Customs Act read with the relevant provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
