9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0130 and 1140131 both dated 23-7-09, for export of two consignments of hand tools declared to be collectively valued at Rs. 82,54,991/-. The export was under drawback claim. In each of the shipping bills, the weight of the goods was also declared in the shipping bill No. 1140130 dated 23-7-09 the declared weight was 23210 Kg. and in shipping bill No. 1140131 dated 23-7-09 the declared weight was 24382 kg. The rate of drawback on the goods was 12% of the FOB value, with cap of 18.8 per kg. When the goods were presented to the customs for examination, in both the shipping bills, the actual weight was found to be about 26% less. The shortage in bill of shipping No. 1140130 was 8020 kg. and the shortage in other shipping bill No. 1140131 was 44 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ece and not Rs. 18.8 per kg., as contended by the Department. He also pleaded that while according to the Department, the excess drawback claim is only Rs. 2,31,294/-, the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- is excessive. Pleading that the appellant want to export the goods he sought waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty for hearing of this appeal and taking up this appeal for final disposal as the goods are incurring heavy demurrage and also pleaded for setting aside the confiscation and penalty. 2.2 Shri Surendra Shah, the learned Departmental Representative, pleaded that this is the case of deliberate misdeclaration of the quantity with intention to claim higher drawback, that the value cap of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issible. Therefore, the misdeclaration in respect of weight would have bearing on the quantum of drawback to which the exporter would be eligible. Though the appellant plead that the difference in the weight is on account of mixing of the export consignments meant for different overseas buyers, this plea is difficult to accept, as, at the same time, it has been pleaded that there is no difference in the description of the goods, value and the number of pieces. I, therefore, hold that the weight has been misdeclared with intention to claim higher drawback and hence the goods have been correctly confiscated under the provisions of Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the penalty has been correctly imposed on the appellant under Section 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
