TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttam Cotton Mills Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to Network and Uttam) have filed shipping bills indicating the exports therein, to have been made against EPCG Licence issued to M/s. Rogini Garments (hereinafter referred to Rogini) for export of 100% cotton knitted mens vests and T-Shirts. Pursuant to investigations, it appeared that the EPCG license pertained actually to Rogini; that Network and Uttam had mis-declared Rogini as supporting manufacturers of the goods in the documents to fabricate evidences that Rogini had indeed manufactured the export goods; that this was done to facilitate Rogini to fraudulently avail the benefits under EPCG Scheme by getting the credit of exports made by Network and Uttam. Accordingly, a SCN dated 25.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2011 and C/35/2011 on the ground that the adjudicating authority while upholding the confiscability of the goods sought to be exported by Network and Uttam, has however, not proceeded to confiscate the goods and not released the same under Section 125 ibid. 2.1 When the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of Network and Uttam, Ld. Advocate Ms. Lakshmi Sriram appeared and submitted that mention of EPCG license of Rogini by these appellants is only by inadvertence; that Rogini was the supporting manufacturer of both Network and Uttam and all the three firms have long relationship between them. The mention of EPCG license of Rogini was only made by bonafide mistake on the part of Network and Uttam. Ld. Advocate also submits that no activ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 113 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962, the adjudicating authority also in para-32 (1) and (iv) have clearly held that the impugned goods sought to be exported by both Network and Uttam were "liable for confiscation under Section 113 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962". However, the authority has not proceeded to order confiscation and impose redemption fine to redeem the goods so confiscated under Section 125 ibid. Ld. AR therefore submits that this portion of the order needs modification to the extent of confirming the confiscation of the goods under Section 113 (i) ibid and imposition of appropriate fine under Section 125 ibid. 5. Heard both the sides and have gone through the facts of the case. 6.1 With regard to imposition of penalty un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egistered. There is also no discrepancy or mis-declaration in the description and value of the goods sought to be exported. In the circumstances, we hold that the ends of justice will be adequately served by reducing penalty imposed under Section 114 (iii) of Uttam and Network from Rs. 5,00,000/- each to Rs. 1,00,000/- each. So ordered. 6.2 Coming to the appeal filed by Dachser, the SCN has alleged abetment on the part of the said appellant by mis-declaration of the documents filed by Network and Uttam. There is also an allegation that Dachser had "allowed Rogini Garments to endorse the shipping bills". However, no evidence of any sort had been adduced to support these allegations. Even in the impugned order, in Para-28 the adjudicating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds. This has not been done. We therefore order modification of the impugned order in respect of paras 32 (i) and 32 (iv) to order that the goods impugned therein are confiscated under Section 113 (i) ibid. We further hold that the goods should be released on redemption fine under Section 125 ibid. In the ordinary course, the quantum of redemption fine would have to be commensurate not only on the value of the goods but also to some extent with the margin of profit of the goods and other ingredients. However, notwithstanding the value of the goods viz. Rs. 92,26,410/- in respect of Network and Rs. 77,454,624/- in respect of Uttam, we are of the opinion that redemption fine should also be commensurate to the gravity and incurability of the of....