9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the quantity of goods being exported was mis-declared, the goods are liable to confiscation and redemption fine is imposable – In the present case, the goods were very much available at the time of export and in fact were released only after payment of redemption fine - The law does not stipulate that only the differential quantity which has been mis-declared is to be confiscated - Once there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are that the appellant filed two shipping bills for export of dyed printed fabric made from 100% polyester filament yarn under DEPB scheme. On examination, it was found that there was shortage of 5 mtrs. in each pack of 25 mtrs. in both the shipping bills. Thus there was shortage of 12335 mtrs. valued at FOB Rs.6,48,255/- in respect of the first shipping bill and 12689 mtrs. valued at FOB Rs.6,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilable for confiscation at any point of time. In support of her contention that no redemption fine is imposable, the learned advocate relied upon the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shiv KripaIspat Pvt. Vs. CCE, Nasik reported in 2009(235)ELT 623(Tri-LB) = (2009-TIOL-388-CESTAT-MUM-LB). The learned Advocate also contended that in case it is held that the goods are liable for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. There is no dispute that the goods found at the time of examination were 20% less than what was declared. The explanation given by the appellant is that it is due to mistake on the part of the factory employee. The factory employee acts on behalf of the appellant and the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with respect to the quantity, the entire consignment is liable to be confiscated. In view of this position, confiscation and redemption fine are upheld. However, I find substance in the argument of the learned Advocate that the benefit that would have accrued to the appellant would have been approximately Rs.1.07 lakhs and in view of this position, redemption fine and penalty imposed are on the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
