2001 (3) TMI 434 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds confiscation of goods for mis-declaration in Zinc Oxide export

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the seized goods due to mis-declaration in the Shipping Bill by the appellants, engaged in Zinc Oxide export. The ... Drawback - Duty drawback - Confiscation and penalty Issues: Mis-declaration of quantity in Shipping Bill, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of penaltyMis-declaration of quantity in Shipping Bill:The case involved the appellants, engaged in the manufacture and export of Zinc Oxide, who filed a Shipping Bill for export claiming duty drawback. The Customs officers seized a portion of the goods, suspecting improper exportation. The appellants argued that they did not mis-declare the quantity of goods and provided explanations for the discrepancies. The lower authorities found mis-declaration, but the appellants contended that the weighment was affected due to technical issues and they were willing to reconcile any differences. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to produce the entire declared quantity at the time of filing the Shipping Bill, indicating a fraudulent attempt to claim higher drawback. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the seized goods and reduced the penalty imposed, considering the circumstances and legal provisions.Confiscation of goods:The Customs authorities confiscated a portion of Zinc Oxide and imposed a penalty on the appellants for alleged mis-declaration. The appellants argued that they had valid reasons for the discrepancies in the quantity presented for export. The Tribunal observed that the appellants failed to comply with the requirement to produce the declared quantity of goods at the time of filing the Shipping Bill, leading to suspicion of fraudulent intentions. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods but reduced the penalty imposed, deeming the original amount excessive based on the circumstances of the case.Imposition of penalty:The lower authorities imposed a penalty on the appellants under the Customs Act. The appellants contested the penalty, claiming that it was disproportionate and exorbitant. The Tribunal reviewed the circumstances and found that while the confiscation of goods was justified, the penalty amount was excessive. Considering the provisions of the Customs Act, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs, deeming the original amount harsher than warranted. The Tribunal modified the order of the lower authorities accordingly, maintaining the confiscation of goods but adjusting the penalty amount.