2024 (12) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7% polyester plus 43% cotton woven boys hooded shirt (62059090) declaring their FOB value at Rs.15,68,750.40 and duty drawback of Rs.1,39,618.79. On examination it was found that the subject cargo was 100% cotton woven babies hooded shirt (CTH 62092000) and 100% cotton woven boys hooded shirt (CTH 62052000). The appellant vide their letter dated 28.5.2014 informed that by oversight they submitted the shipping documents with wrong content of composition due to typographical error and requested for allowing their cargo for export. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confiscated the said exported goods for their mis-declaration and gave option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- under sec. 125 of Cu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt that the appellant was actually entitled to drawback of Rs1,19,224/- as against Rs.1,39,618.79 claimed by them. No discrepancy regarding the quantity of the export goods had been noticed by the department. The subject gods were allowed to be exported with a drawback entitlement of Rs 1,19,224/-. There was no seizure of the export goods. Hence holding that the export goods were liable to confiscation as per Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 was totally vitiated and unsustainable. Since prior to confiscation under Section 113 of the Act, such goods ought to be seized in the first place, which was not done. Secondly, when a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is imposed, there must be something to redeem or claim back. When the goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions made by the appellant, dated 17/10/2014, which was placed before me during the hearing. I have also perused the Appeal Papers, and the judgments cited. I find that this is a case of drawback where the allegation is that the goods exported merited classification under CTH 6200 2000 and 6005 2000 as against CTH 6205 9090 and 62059090 as declared by the appellant, which meant that the appellant was actually entitled to drawback of Rs1,19,224/- as against Rs.1,39,618.79 claimed by them, thus resulting in an excess claim of Rs 20,394/-. The 'Discussion and Findings' portion of the Order is extracted below; 6. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submission made by the manufacturer vide their letter dated 28.5.201....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcular issued a little before the OIO was passed totally missed the attention of the Ld. Original Authority. The order after accepting that the error was typographical in nature, gives a miss to the principle of "proportionality" while evoking the penal provisions. Moreso in a case where no SCN was issued or hearing granted as per the request of the appellant. Such waiver of rights is not uncommon where the exporter finds speed of essence and does not want to lose time and money on demurrage etc, in the delay that a formal adjudication process involves. Hence the decision is shocking to the conscience, being wholly out of proportion to the misconduct caused by a typographical error and merits to be set aside for lacking both fairness and tr....