Tribunal allows appeal on export mis-declaration, lifts confiscation order

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai partially allowed the appeal against the Order-in-Original confiscating an exports consignment under the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved mis-declaration of weight in Shipping Bills by Silkon Silk Mills (Exports) Ltd. The Tribunal held that the misdeclaration did not render the goods prohibited for export under the Act. It set aside the confiscation order and penalties under Section 114 but imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 under Section 117 on the appellant firm, without imposing a separate penalty on the Director.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of exports consignment under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Alleged mis-declaration of weight in Shipping Bills.
3. Interpretation of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act.
4. Compliance with Foreign Trade Act and Rules.
5. Applicability of penalty provisions under Sections 114 and 117 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original confiscating an exports consignment under the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around the mis-declaration of weight in Shipping Bills by Silkon Silk Mills (Exports) Ltd. The Commissioner of Customs-II, Bombay had ordered confiscation of the consignment with an option to pay a redemption fine and imposed penalties on various individuals involved. The appellants contended that the misdeclaration was inadvertent and that they had not contravened any duty as they had not obtained an Advance Licence.

The ld. Advocate for the appellants argued that the provisions of Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, which relate to prohibited goods, were not applicable in this case as there was no prohibition under the Act or any other law for the export of the goods. He also challenged the admissibility of statements recorded during the investigation, claiming they were obtained under pressure. The Advocate cited a Tribunal decision to support the argument that non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act may render the appellants liable to penalty under Section 117, not under Section 113.

On the other hand, the ld. SDR supported the order, asserting that mis-declaration of weight in the Shipping Bills made the goods prohibited for export, attracting the provisions of Section 113(d) of the Act. He referred to the Foreign Trade Act and Rules to argue that the mis-declaration constituted a patent contravention, justifying confiscation under Section 113(d). The weight discrepancy was highlighted as significant, being about 53%.

The Tribunal observed that the Show Cause Notice only alleged confiscation under Section 113(d) and did not invoke other provisions like Section 113(i). It was determined that the misdeclaration of weight did not make the goods prohibited for export under the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that non-compliance with procedural formalities did not attract confiscation under Section 113(d) and that penalties could be imposed under Section 117 for minor contraventions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed one appeal, partly allowed another, setting aside the confiscation order and penalties under Section 114, but imposed a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act. The penalty of Rs. 1,000 was imposed on the appellant firm, with no separate penalty on the Director deemed necessary.

---