2005 (2) TMI 575 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal upholds Rs. 3.00 lakh penalty for misdeclaring goods in export consignments

EJAZ VALIULLA Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (E. D.), MUMBAI

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs on the appellant for misdeclaring goods in export consignments. ... Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay Issues involved: Misdeclaration of goods in export, imposition of penalty, appeal dismissal on the ground of limitationMisdeclaration of goods in export:The case involves misdeclaration of goods exported as Chadila Choora when they were actually Agarwood, a prohibited item. The appellant had earlier exported the same goods by misdeclaring them. The authorities found through investigation and the appellant's statement that the earlier exports were indeed Agarwood. As a result, a penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs was imposed by the adjudicating authority, amounting to Rs. 1.50 lakh for each consignment.Imposition of penalty:The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 3.00 lakhs on the appellant for misdeclaring the goods in the export consignments. The penalty was divided, with Rs. 1.50 lakh imposed for each of the two consignments where Agarwood was misdeclared as Chadila Choora. This penalty was a consequence of the investigation and the appellant's statement recorded by the authorities.Appeal dismissal on the ground of limitation:The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed citing a delay of 91 days in filing the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the relevant limitation for filing the appeal was 60 days. However, the order communicated to the appellant by the original adjudicating authority indicated that the appeal should be filed within three months. The appellant received the order on 18th June, 2003, and filed the appeal on 16th September, 2003, which was within three months as per the original order. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider this discrepancy and dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation. The case was remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to admit the appeal after condonation of delay, if any, and to dispose of the appeal after providing a personal hearing to the appellant. The limitation aspect was deemed crucial in the appeal, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and a stay on recovery. The appeal was directed to be disposed of within two months after receipt of the order.This comprehensive summary highlights the issues of misdeclaration of goods in export, imposition of penalty, and appeal dismissal on the ground of limitation in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai.