Tribunal overturns redemption fine and penalty for mis-declared goods, allowing re-export without repercussions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision to impose a redemption fine and penalty for allowing the re-export of mis-declared goods. They found no justification for penalizing the appellant, considering the supplier's acknowledgment of the mistake and absence of collusion. Previous cases supporting re-export without penalty in similar situations were cited, leading to the conclusion that no fine or penalty should be imposed in this case. The Tribunal ultimately permitted the re-export of the goods without any financial repercussions.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty for allowing re-export of mis-declared goods.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant filed two Bills of Entry for goods declared as LDPE, which were found to be Polypropylene (PP) granules. The primary adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with an option for redemption and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.
2. The appellant argued that the orders for LDPE were placed before the mistake, and the supplier accepted the error, reimbursed the payment, and agreed to re-export the goods. They cited previous judgments to support that no fine or penalty should be imposed without mens rea.
3. The Revenue contended that the mis-declaration seemed to avoid anti-dumping duty on PP, referencing previous cases to support the imposition of redemption fine and penalty in such circumstances.
4. The Tribunal noted the timeline of events, the supplier's acknowledgment of the mistake, and the absence of any collusion by the appellant to receive cheaper goods. They found no basis for the Revenue's speculation on avoiding anti-dumping duty. Previous judgments were cited where re-export without fine or penalty was allowed in similar circumstances.
5. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for imposing a fine and penalty for re-exporting the goods. They set aside the impugned order and allowed re-export without any fine or penalty, ultimately allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the facts and legal precedents, and the final decision to allow re-export without imposing any fine or penalty.

---