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

....stoms found that the goods of style No. 905 comparising 672 pieces of Blouses contained in 7 cartons valued at ₹ 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 regular exporters of garments.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igible 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 ₹ 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 import of the sam....