9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in sheet form' under Drawback Serial No.40030010 and claimed 7.2% of drawback to the tune of Rs. 1,27,891/-. The classification in Serial No.40030010 is for 'tissue paper in roll form', whereas classification for 'tissue paper in sheet form' is under Serial No.48030099, for which, the drawback is at the rate of 1%. Thus, instead of claiming the drawback at 1% which works out to Rs. 44,689/-, the petitioner claimed drawback of Rs. 1,27,891/-. The misclassification was noticed by the Customs and further investigated by the SIIB. On the request of the petitioner and upon recording the statements of the concerned personnel of the CHA, export clearance was granted. (ii) Through an Order-in-Original dated 22.03.2012, pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Heard Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rajasekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had originally declared the goods under Serial No.40030010 in 'tissue paper in roll form' and claimed 7.2% of drawback. Subsequently, they had rectified the drawback to Serial No.48030099, which is for 'tissue in sheet form'. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that they had no intention to miscalculate or mis-classify the goods and the wrong quoting of the DBK code was only by inadvertence, which was subsequently rectified when it was brought to their notice and therefore, the penalty should not have been levied. 5. I am u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal) in the case of Decor India and others V. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, which decision of the Tribunal came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1994 (94) E.L.T.A 51 (SC). The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be misplaced. 8. In the Order-in-Appeal No.35 of 2012 dated 31.07.2012, the order of confiscation and the option to redeem, were set aside, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Finesse Corporation Inc's case (supra) and the penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Act was confirmed. As against this, it was the petitioner, who had preferred the Revision under Section 129(DD) of the Act, which came to be dismissed on 13.04.2013. The power to revise is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reafter rectified it itself would amount to misclassification and thereby attempted to export the goods improperly. A mere plea of 'inadvertence' may not absolve the petitioner and grant them immunity from penalty. The discretion of levying penalty is always available with the Statutory Authority under Section 114, whenever such an Authority is of the view that an attempt to export the goods are in such a nature that the goods would be liable to be confiscated under Section 113. Since the Original Authority was of the opinion that the petitioner attempted to export the goods through misclassification, this Court is of the view that the Authority was justified in levying the penalty. 11. The confiscation order, with an option to red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
