TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were indicated in the shipping bills by mistake - Held that:- The adjudicating authority in para-31 of the impugned order, while confirming the fact of mis-declaration in the shipping bills by both the appellants, has observed that appropriate proceedings on further investigations will have to be initiated by the concerned Customs House, where the EPCG licenses relating to Rogini have been registered. There is also no discrepancy or mis-declaration in the description and value of the goods sought to be exported - the ends of justice will be adequately served by reducing penalty imposed under Section 114 (iii) of Uttam and Network from ₹ 5,00,000/- each to ₹ 1,00,000/- each. Mis-declaration of the documents filed by Network ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, C/423/2010, C/29, 35/2011 - FINAL ORDER Nos. 40065-40069/2019 - Dated:- 1-1-2019 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Ms. Lakshmi Sriram, Advocate, Shri Arun Chandra K, Representative for the Appellants Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) for the Respondents. ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar The facts of the matter are that M/s. Network Industries Ltd. and M/s. Uttam 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. Pursuan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iii) ibid on Rogini. A penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- was imposed on Dachser under Section 114 (iii) ibid. Network and Uttam have preferred appeals C/389/2010, and C/390/2010 claiming relief against the penalty imposed on them under Section 114 (iii) ibid. Dachser has filed appeal C/423/2010 against the imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- under Section 114 (iii) on the ground of violation of natural justice. The department has also preferred appeal C/29/2011 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain the correctness of the information provided by the exporters by in which manner they had played a major role in abetting the omissions and commissions of the exporter and are very much liable for penal action as confirmed in the impugned order. 4. With regard to the departmental appeals, Ld. AR points out that although the SCN dated 25.06.2010 had very clearly proposed confiscation of the goods sought to be exported by both Uttam and Network under Section 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very much imposable on both Network and Uttam. However, we do find that there is scope of some leniency in the quantum of penalty. The adjudicating authority in para-31 of the impugned order, while confirming the fact of mis-declaration in the shipping bills by both the appellants, has observed that appropriate proceedings on further investigations will have to be initiated by the concerned Customs House, where the EPCG licenses relating to Rogini have been registered. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the goods are liable for confiscation. It is pertinent to note that this finding of the adjudicating authority has not been appealed against by neither Network and Uttam nor have they filed any cross objections against the departmental appeals. Be it as it may be, the adjudicating authority should have correctly proceeded to order confiscation of the goods and imposed redemption fine under Section 125 ibid thus gives an option for the exporters to redeem the goods. 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 u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
