Tribunal Upholds Confiscation & Penalties for Export Misdeclaration

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and imposition of a redemption fine and penalty in a case involving mis-declaration of export goods under the DEPB scheme. Despite the appellant's explanation of a factory worker's mistake, the Tribunal found the misdeclaration justified the penalties. The Tribunal differentiated this case from a previous decision, emphasizing that entire consignments are liable for confiscation upon misdeclaration. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs.1,50,000 and the penalty to Rs.1,07,000, considering the appellant's benefit. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Mis-declaration in export goods under DEPB scheme, liability for confiscation, imposition of redemption fine and penalty

The judgment dealt with a case where the appellant filed two shipping bills for export of dyed printed fabric made from 100% polyester filament yarn under the DEPB scheme, but it was discovered that there was a shortage in the goods declared. The appellant claimed that the mis-declaration was due to a mistake by a worker in the factory. The advocate for the appellant argued that there was no intention to claim higher DEPB benefits and thus no fine or penalty should be imposed. The appellant also contended that the goods could not be confiscated as the excess goods were not available for confiscation at any point. The advocate relied on a previous Tribunal decision to support the argument against imposing a redemption fine.

The respondent argued that the misdeclaration was not disputed, and the appellant's explanation could not be accepted. The respondent contended that redemption fine and penalty should be imposed, citing a previous Tribunal decision to support this argument. The Tribunal noted that the goods found during examination were 20% less than declared, attributing the discrepancy to a mistake by the factory employee acting on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal held that since the quantity of goods was misdeclared, confiscation and redemption fine were justified. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the previous decision cited by the appellant, emphasizing that the entire consignment is liable to be confiscated upon misdeclaration, even if the excess misdeclared quantity was not available for confiscation.

After considering both sides, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation and redemption fine but reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed, taking into account the benefit that would have accrued to the appellant. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs.1,50,000 and the penalty to Rs.1,07,000, providing consequential relief. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---