False export declarations may attract customs penalty, while no-dealing with goods can justify waiver of related excise penalties.

Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was treated as not prima facie sustainable where the appellants had not dealt with the offending goods, and waiver was allowed on that basis. By contrast, false export declarations in shipping bills, supported by the admitted use of market-purchased goods as if they were duty-free manufactured goods, were treated as prima facie attracting Section 114 of the Customs Act and the confiscatory consequence under Section 113(i), so complete waiver was declined and 50% pre-deposit was directed for that penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were prima facie sustainable when the appellants were said not to have dealt with the offending goods; (ii) Whether the appellants were prima facie liable to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for wrong declarations in export documents, and what pre-deposit should be directed.

Issue (i): Whether penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were prima facie sustainable when the appellants were said not to have dealt with the offending goods.

Analysis: The earlier decision of the same Bench was relied upon, where the view accepted by the third Member was that penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were not imposable when the person had not dealt with the goods. Applying that reasoning, the appellants were found to have a prima facie case for waiver in respect of those penalties.

Conclusion: Prima facie waiver of the penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were prima facie liable to penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for wrong declarations in export documents, and what pre-deposit should be directed.

Analysis: On the admitted facts, goods purchased from the open market were exported in shipping bills as if they were the goods required to be manufactured from duty-free raw materials. The definition of "entry" and the confiscatory consequence under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as supporting the view that the export declarations were and that the goods were liable to confiscation. On that basis, the appellants were held not to have made out a case for complete waiver of the penalty under Section 114.

Conclusion: The appellants were held prima facie liable under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 and were directed to pre-deposit 50% of the penalties imposed under that provision.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted only in part: complete waiver was accepted at the prima facie stage for the penalties under Section 112 and the relevant Central Excise Rules, while the penalties under Section 114 were allowed to stand to the extent of a 50% pre-deposit with stay on the balance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the materials disclose that a person did not deal with the offending goods, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the corresponding excise-rule provisions is not prima facie warranted; but where export documents contain false declarations making the goods liable to confiscation, penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be sustained and partial pre-deposit may be ordered.

---