2013 (8) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....athew John: The appellant filed Shipping Bill No.3473273, dated 26.08.2009 for export of 20,539.50 sq. ft. of goods declared as " Bufflight Burnish Upper Finished Leather" under claim for drawback. On examination, the Customs officers were of the view that 4803 sq. feet of the goods did not confirm to the description declared in the shipping bill. Here, it is relevant to note that there was exp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er paid the redemption fine and penalty and took back the entire consignment without exporting it, owing to mix-up that has happened at the time of packing. The Revenue was aggrieved that the penalty imposed on the appellant was very meager and, therefore, filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that under Section 114, there is no discretion for imposing pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act is wrong because Section 114 clearly sets out a maximum penalty that can be imposed under the said section and penalty is to be decided by the adjudicating officer considering the gravity of the offence. He relies on the decision of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs Sai Copiers reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T 486 (Mad) . He further points out that at th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e.' These goods could be considered as finished leather only in terms of the Exemption Notification, which in turn, depends upon Public Notice No.3- ETC( PN)/92-97, dated 27.05.1992, issued by the DGFT. He further submits that the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed on the appellant is very low, considering the fact that the duty said to be evaded was Rs.1,58,413/-. 6. Considered the arguments from b....