9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order-in-original by which penalty of Rs.95,730/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellant filed a shipping bill on 27.6.2006 for export of art wares/handicrafts of copper and other handicrafts of iron, the FOB value of which was shown as Rs.12,03,920/- against which drawback of Rs.1,12, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y imposed the aforesaid penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the said Act. 3. The Appellate Commissioner found that the appellant had misdeclared the weight of the copper which was short by 220 Kgs. valued at Rs.7,730/- in order to claim higher drawback. The Appellate Commissioner did not find any reason to interfere with the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or drawback, which does not correspond in any material particular with any information furnished by the exporter or manufacturer under the Act in relation to the fixation of rate of drawback under Section 75, shall be liable to confiscation. The expression "penalty not exceeding the value of the goods" in clause (iii) of Section 114 gives discretion to the concerned authorities to fix the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the value of the goods. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) will meet the ends of justice and will satisfy the purpose of the law keeping in mind that the excess drawback involved was only Rs.8,174/-. 6. For the fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
