2015 (12) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7,26,455/- and Rs. 47,97,236/- claiming duty drawback of Rs. 6,85,336/- and Rs. 6,95,599/- respectively it was found that neither such quantities were available in the exporting consignments nor the values declared were correct. 2. Upon detection by customs as above, immediately on 6.1.2010, exporters filed revised Shipping Bill declaring lower quantities of the above goods covered by the above said Shipping Bills. The revision revealed that there was excess declaration of 188 pieces in Shipping Bill No. 2104684 and 124 pieces in Shipping Bill No. 2104852 originally filed. Customs noticed that there was resultant misdeclaration of the quantity and value of goods meant for export. The higher value declared in original shipping bills witho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es in invoice and packing list details were wrong, that brought out the case of misdeclaration. No prudent exporter shall export higher quantity than the real exportable quantity when he was not paid for such higher quantity. Lower quantity was evidently exportable as per revised invoice as well as packing list filed subsequent to check by customs. Therefore deliberate misdeclaration made by appellant invited provision of section 113(i) and section 113(ii) of Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the appellant is not only liable to redemption fine in view of confiscation warranted by law, but also liable to penalty under law. When learned Commissioner did not impose redemption fine, Revenue has come in appeal while Assessee's appeal is against im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....provision of section 113(i) and 113(ii) of Customs Act, 1962 since there was a misdeclaration of the quantity and value of the goods with material departure to the particulars relating to quantity and value of the goods being attempted to be exported under drawback claim not corresponding in material particular with the information furnished in the export documents. Revenue's contention that appellant acted deliberately cannot be ruled out for the reason that an exporter who has not remitted higher amount of foreign exchange to this country does not expect higher quantity of goods with higher value. Accordingly, confiscation of the goods was justified. Since the goods were under drawback claim, imposition of redemption fine is also warrante....