Tribunal reduces fines for fabric import violation, citing lack of wilful misdeclaration

The tribunal modified the hefty fine and penalty imposed on an EOU for importing an undeclared quantity of fabrics, finding no evidence of wilful misdeclaration. While justifying the confiscation of excess goods, the tribunal reduced the fine from Rs. 9,00,000/- to Rs. 1.5 lakhs and the penalty from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- due to the technical nature of the offense and lack of proof of intentional misdeclaration.

---

---

Issues:
Import of undeclared quantity of fabrics, confiscation of excess goods, penalty imposed under Customs Act, misdeclaration of imported quantity, wilful misdeclaration, excessive fine and penalty.

Analysis:
The case involved the import of an undeclared quantity of fabrics by an EOU, where the goods were found to be in excess of the declared quantity. The excess goods were confiscated under Section 111(f) and (m) of the Customs Act '62, and a hefty fine of Rs. 9,00,000/- was imposed to redeem the confiscated excess fabrics, along with a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Act.

The appellant's defense was that the excess quantity was supplied without their knowledge, and there was no motive for misdeclaration. The appellant had entered the imported quantity as per the Bill of Lading, packing list, and invoice. The tribunal noted that the revenue failed to disprove the appellant's claim of lack of knowledge about the excess quantity, and there seemed to be no wilful misdeclaration on the part of the importer.

The tribunal found that while the confiscation of the impugned goods was justified due to the discrepancy in the declared quantity, the Commissioner's finding of wilful misdeclaration lacked evidence. The tribunal considered the offense to be technical rather than grave, leading to the modification of the fine and penalty. The hefty fine and penalty were deemed excessive and disproportionate, resulting in a reduction to Rs. 1.5 lakhs and Rs. 10,000/- respectively. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of misdeclaration of imported quantity, wilful misdeclaration, and the proportionality of fines and penalties in cases of technical offenses, ultimately leading to a reduction in the financial sanctions imposed on the appellant.

---