9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62 from Rs. 3.50 Lakhs to Rs. 2.65 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1.50 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh, with this Order-in-Original stood modified. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant filed a shipping bill No. 4643329 dated 25/3/2013 for export of 27010.86 sq ft of Goat Burnished Upper Finished Leather having declared FOB value of Rs. 26,43,779.32 under duty drawback scheme. The total drawback claimed under the Tariff No. 411301A was Rs. 1,58,626.76. On the specific information it was revealed that the goods have been misdeclared with respect to description and that unfinished leather was being fraudulently exported. The unfinished leather is restricted as per the Export Policy and only finished leather which complies with the terms and conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y not providing CLRI report dated 3/5/2013 to the appellant. He submits that even though the goods were found to be unfinished leather it was freely exportable therefore the goods were not liable for confiscation. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner and Adjudicating authority failed to notice that processes performed by the appellant was required by the buyer and even as per the buyer it was sufficient to qualify the subject goods as finished leather therefore the appellant was of bonafide belief that the leather required by the buyer is finished leather therefore there is no mis-diclaration on the part of the appellant. 4. Shri. Kamal Puggal, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said Institute certified that the samples were not that of finished leather. Appellant vide letter dated 07.05.2013 interalia submitted that their export order has been cancelled and requested for taking the goods back to town. The adjudicating authority observed that the description of the impugned goods was mis-declared, hence was liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and Section 113h (i) & (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had accepted the fact that since the impugned goods meant for temperate countries, further dyeing and coating is required to make the product suitable for use in the temperate countries. The appellant also accepted the fact that there was mis-declaration but the same was unintentional. The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fine reduced. 9. I find that in the instant case, the appellant had admitted to the fact that there was mis-declaration of the description. The goods were liable for confiscation and the respondent had correctly levied redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's contention that the mis-declaration was unintentional is not convincing. The fine and penalty are leviable even no mens rea is involved. Hon'ble Madras High Court have in their decision in Bansal industries 2007(207) ELT 346(Md) has held that mens rea is not required for imposition of penalty under Customs Act. Hon'ble CESTAT in the case of Sundaram Finance Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2012(279) ELT 220(Tri. Mad) has held that mens rea is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
