CESTAT upholds goods confiscation, reduces fines & penalties for fabric clearance violations

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT upheld the confiscation of goods, reduced the redemption fine, upheld the duty demand, and reduced penalties imposed on the appellant firm and individuals involved in attempting to clear imported fabrics exceeding permissible limits clandestinely using forged documents. The tribunal found the appellants aware of discrepancies and involved in underhand clearance methods, emphasizing non-conformity to export product specifications under the DEEC Scheme. Despite penalty reductions, confiscation and duty demands were upheld. Decision pronounced on 3-12-2005.

---

---

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, consisting of Members M. Veeraiyan and P.K. Das, heard an appeal arising from order-in-original No. 47/2005 dated 9-6-2005. The appellant firm imported fabrics under an advance license but was found to have imported fabrics with a GSM exceeding the permissible limit. The consignment was also found to have been attempted to be cleared clandestinely from the customs area using a forged gate pass. The tribunal noted that the imported fabrics did not match the specifications required for the export product, which was against the DEEC Scheme. The tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods, reduced the redemption fine, upheld the duty demand, and reduced the penalties imposed on the appellant firm, Shri E.K. Raju, and B.N. Jha. The decision was pronounced on 3-12-2005. The tribunal found that the appellants were aware of the discrepancies and were involved in the attempt to clear the consignment through underhand means. The penalties were reduced but the confiscation of the goods and duty demand were upheld. The tribunal found that the appellants were attempting to import goods that did not conform to the license issued to them and were involved in a scheme to clear the consignment without proper examination, using forged documents. The tribunal emphasized that the goods did not match the specifications required for the export product, which was a violation of the DEEC Scheme. The penalties were reduced, but the confiscation of the goods and duty demand were upheld. The decision was made on 3-12-2005.

---