2011 (5) TMI 795 - AT - Customs

Appeal Rejected in Export Mis-declaration Case; Original Fine and Penalty Upheld

The Tribunal rejected the appeal in a case involving mis-declaration of goods for export and contraventions in export policy. The lower appellate ... Mis-declaration of goods - sawn timber - export policy contraventions - absolute confiscation - confiscation with option to redeem - redemption fine - penalty reductionMis-declaration of goods - sawn timber - export policy contraventions - Validity of the finding that the goods were mis-declared as musical instruments and handicrafts and were in fact sawn timber, and existence of contraventions of export policy. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal records that the consignment was entered for export as musical instruments and handicrafts but on examination consisted of sawn timber in different sizes. The lower appellate authority found additional contraventions of the export policy applicable to sawn timber. Those factual and regulatory findings were accepted by this Court and not disturbed.The finding of mis-declaration and of export policy contraventions is upheld.Absolute confiscation - confiscation with option to redeem - redemption fine - penalty reduction - Whether the Court should interfere with the lower appellate authority's order converting absolute confiscation into confiscation with option to redeem and fixing the redemption fine and reduced penalty. - HELD THAT: - The lower appellate authority had exercised leniency by altering absolute confiscation to confiscation with an option to take the goods back to town on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.40,000 and by reducing the penalty to Rs.20,000. Having considered the matter, this Court found that the appellate authority's exercise of discretion was lenient and there was no justification to reduce the redemption fine or the penalty further. No error of law or perversity in that exercise of discretion was demonstrated to warrant interference.No interference with the appellate authority's order; redemption fine and reduced penalty stand.Final Conclusion: The appeal is rejected; the findings of mis-declaration and export policy contraventions are upheld, and the lower appellate authority's order converting absolute confiscation to confiscation with option to redeem (with the specified redemption fine) and reducing the penalty is not disturbed. Issues: Mis-declaration of goods for export, contraventions in export policy, reduction in redemption fine and penaltyMis-declaration of goods for export:The judgment addresses a case where goods were mis-declared as musical instruments and handicrafts for export but were found to be sawn timber upon examination. The lower appellate authority noted this mis-declaration and also found other contraventions in regard to export policy even for the export of sawn timber. Despite a lenient view taken by the lower appellate authority, the Tribunal found no justification for reducing the redemption fine and penalty determined by the lower appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal based on these findings.Reduction in redemption fine and penalty:The lower appellate authority had changed the absolute confiscation of the goods to confiscation with an option to take the goods back upon payment of a nominal redemption fine of Rs.40,000 for goods valued at Rs.1,55,922. Additionally, the penalty was reduced from Rs.1,56,000 to Rs.20,000. The Tribunal determined that there was no justification for the reduction in the redemption fine and penalty as decided by the lower appellate authority, leading to the rejection of the appeal.The judgment, delivered by Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, involved the mis-declaration of goods for export, contraventions in export policy, and a dispute over the reduction in the redemption fine and penalty. The Advocate for the Appellant narrated the brief facts of the case and requested leniency, which was opposed by the Departmental Representative. The Tribunal noted the mis-declaration of goods as musical instruments and handicrafts when they were actually sawn timber, along with other contraventions in export policy. Despite the lower appellate authority's lenient view, the Tribunal found no justification for the reduction in the redemption fine and penalty, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal.