TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 1167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 20 lakh and also penalty of Rs. 10 lakh under the provisions of section 114 (ii) of Customs act 1962. 2. The appellant filed 14 shipping bills on 18.9.2010 under claim of duty drawback at ICD, Mandideep in which they declared for export 124464 pieces of man-made fiber jeans for a total F.O.B. value of Rs. 6,05,08,173/- involving DBK of Rs. 53,24,214/-. On the same day, the appellant sent a letter to the customs authorities with a request to "detain and return the container since they have provided the goods of another buyer". The request of the appellant was not accepted by the customs authorities and the goods were examined and found to contain 62232 pieces of jeans instead of 124464 pieces as declared in the shipping bills. The goods w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty on the appellant. 4. Is in the present appeal the appellant has sought relief on the ground that this was a bona fide mistake and they should not be penalised since they nave suo moto taken the effort to inform the customs and ask return of the goods. They have also cited several case laws in their support. 5. We have heard Shri Vijay Kumar, advocate appearing for the appellants as well as Dr. Shri SK Sheoran the learned DR for the revenue. 6. We have carefully gone through the impugned order and the submissions made by both sides. Commissioner, in the impugned order has discussed the submission made by the appellant in para 18 of the impugned order (after reproducing the appellant's letter dated 18.9.2010). This is reproduced bel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also failed to file an amendment to shipping bills as per law when they had realised that they had initially filed incorrect particulars. Therefore though no allegation of willfull suppression of facts could be fast and on the party they are definitely guilty of not taking adequate care when filing documents to customs particularly when it is involved substantial drawback amounts. There is no dispute that value of goods had been declared incorrectly to the customs though out of a mistake". 7. From the Commissioner's own findings recorded above we are convinced that the mis-declaration of the details of the goods made in the shipping bills was not intentional and it has arisen in due to a bona fide mistake. This view is further strengt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e word suggests, is punishment for an act of deliberate deception by the assessee with the intent to evade duty for adopting any of the means mentioned in the Section. Since the present is a case of bona fide mistake, therefore in terms of the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, no interference is called for." Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the matter of Singh Traders vs- CST, Lucknow reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 344 (All.) observed that if the mistake detected and rectified by assessee himself, no penalty for bona fide mistake is imposable. Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi reported in 2002 (147) E.L.T. 84 (Tri. - Dei.) "5. Heard the submissions of both sides. We find that the appellants had prepared the B....