1984 (3) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 10-7-1981. On examination, the customs found that the goods of style No. 905 comparising 672 pieces of Blouses contained in 7 cartons valued at Rs. 16,800/- f.o.b were not made out of handloom fabric but were of powerloom fabric. The Assistant Collector held that this constituted a case of misdeclaration rendering the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act and liability for imposition of penalty under Section 114. He did not believe the exporters explanation that the misdeclaration was not intentional and was a result of incorrect information given by the suppliers of fabric and they had still a quota of 45,000 pieces of powerloom blouses and would not resort to misdeclaration for only 672 pieces, since they are ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpted to export a negligible quantity of only 672 pieces by misdeclaration. They have unwittingly violated section 50(2) on account of incorrect supplies by the manufacturer, who delivered the fabrics as handloom fabrics. At best a penalty upto Rs. 1.000/- could be imposed under section 117 for this violation, if the benefit of doubt is not given. There is no warrant for imposing any penalty under section 114 as no violation of Section 113(d) was involved. The Appellate Collector also failed to explain how the export policy for export of garments of powerloom fabrics differs from that for garments of handloom fabrics. Both are under OGL3; both are covered by quota allotment from AEPC; Replenishment licences for both are at the same rate for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty under section 114 was justified. The Learned Departmental Representative asserted that the penalty imposed and the fine in lieu of confiscation imposed for the contravention are not harsh. 6. It is a fact that garments of powerloom fabrics had been sought to be exported against a description of handloom garments. As argued by the department there has been contravention of the Export Control Order and of the Customs Act. The confiscation of the offending goods and levy of penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act are, therefore, technically in order. The question is whether there are any extenuating circumstances as urged by the appellant. The department has not controverted the contention that there was a balance of qu....