2025 (10) TMI 891

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hipping bills No.4375372, 4375056 and 4377936, all dated 11.03.2013 for export of parts of rubber processing machines. During the course of examination of goods, it was found that in Shipping Bill No.4377936, they proposed to clear 7 numbers of chariot assembly whereas in the other shipping bills Nos.4375372, 4375056, it was proposed to clear 43 sets of parts of rubber processing machinery. On examination, it was found that against the 43 sets of parts, only 15 sets were found, leaving a shortage of 20 sets of parts in shipping bill No.4375056 and 8 sets of parts in shipping bill No.4375372. Also, on weighment of goods, it was noticed that there was a shortage of 353 kgs. in respect of the said shipping bills. On completion of investigation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 15 sets of goods were cleared and not 43 sets; that the excess 28 sets which were wrongly declared in the invoices are still found to be under process in the factory. Thus, the error in the invoices have been accepted by the jurisdictional Divisional Officer on the basis of records produced by the appellant. Thus, the finding in the impugned order that 66% of shortage cannot be treated as mere mistake but positive act on the part of the appellant cannot be sustained. Further, he has submitted that confiscation under Section 113(h)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is bad in law as the said provision is not applicable to the present case since it is applicable only to the circumstances where the goods entered for exportation. In the present case,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act, 1962 and penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is justified. 7. Undisputed facts of the case are that instead of export of 43 sets of items against the said two shipping bills, only 15 sets have been proposed to be cleared. Explaining the error, it was stated by the appellant through their letters dated 16.03.2013, 18.03.2013 and 22.03.2013 that it was due to mistake occurred on the part of the dispatch team which packed only 15 items instead of 43 items that were supposed to be shipped. It was contended that since the dispatch team had forwarded the wrong packing list, which were prepared in advanced supposed to be shipped, the error has occurred. Therefore, there was miscommunication between logistic dep....