Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2010 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (5) TMI 741 - AT - CustomsMisdeclaration of goods - the actual gross weight of the goods was 7011 kgs, as against the declared weight of 9699.76 kgs. There was a difference of 2687.24 kgs. in the weight - it was alleged that misdeclaration was with an intention to avail higher drawback - Held that: - it is a case of export of the consignment to avail duty drawback. In this case, the exporter did no verify the contents like weight and nature of the goods and filed the shipping bills. It is duty of the exporter to examine and verify the contents like weight and nature of the goods before exportation. The exporter cannot take excuse that the shipping bills have been filed on the basis of the invoices supplied by the supplier of the goods - In the case of import, importer has to depend on the invoice/import documents. But in the case of export, the exporter is duty bound to export the goods as per specifications mentioned in the invoice and shipping bills - confiscation and penalty upheld. The redemption fine and the penalties are highly excessive on the appellant - the redemption fine reduced from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 2 lakhs and penalty from ₹ 2 lakhs to ₹ 50,000/-. Penalty on partner - Held that: - The penalty on Shri Gulam Mohd. A. Wahab is not sustainable in view of the decision in the case of Jupiter Exports [2007 (6) TMI 2 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that no separate penalty be imposed on the partner when the partnership firm is penalized - penalty on partner set aside. Penalty on CHA - Held that: - CHA has acted in the bona fide belief documents supplied to him for preparing shipping bills and no statement of the CHA was recorded and there is no statement of the exporter that CHA was having any knowledge about misdeclaration of the goods - penalty on CHA waived. Penalty on appellant - Held that: - the Commissioner has given the benefit of doubt to the appellant as no investigation took place with regard to the role of the appellant. When the Commissioner has held that appellant has been given the benefit of doubt with regard to his actions as Apprising Officer in examining the shipping bills, hence protection u/s 155 of the CA, 1962 is available to the Appraising Officer. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
|