TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted when the excess quantity is so huge, it has to be seen that the redemption fine for the excess value of Rs.4,76,400/- is too high. The authorities below have imposed a redemption fine of Rs.3,35,750/-. Since the cargo is of perishable in nature, the profit margin would be very less. The redemption can be reduced to Rs. One lakh. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Section 114(iii) states that the penalty imposed is not to exceed the value of the goods as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under the Act whichever is greater. For these reasons, it is found that the penalty imposed under sec. 114(iii) does not require any interference. On perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below, nothing is brought out to prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o was 44.5 MTs as against the weight declared as 33 MTs. The entire cargo of 44.5 MTs was seized under mahazar on 23.10.2018 on the reasonable belief that the exporter had attempted to export illicitly by misdeclaring the quantity of the goods in the shipping bills. The details are as under:- SB No./ Date Description of cargo Declared quantity (in Kgs.) Actual quantity (in Kgs.) Declared Value (Rs.) Actual Value (Rs.) 8402858, 8402954 8403075 all dated 23.10.18 Big Onions 33000 44,500 8,58,599/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght of the goods. Since onion is a perishable commodity and the weight will decrease on drying before the cargo reaches the destination port, they had taken excess quantity in order to compensate the weight loss on account of drying of the onion. The said fact has not been disputed by the department. Further, the appellant has not made any monetary benefit out of the excess quantity declared. There was no export incentive received by the appellant by declaring excess quantity of the goods. This being so, the penalties imposed are too high and harsh on the appellant. Considering the fact that no motive was alleged or proved by the authorities below, the appellant deserves to be treated leniently. 4. The adjudicating authority has imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not included or are in excess of those included in the entry made under this Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under section 77; [(i) any goods entered for exportation which do not correspond in respect of value or in any material particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77; [(ii) any goods entered for exportation under claim for drawback which do not correspond in any material particular with any information furnished by the exporter or manufacturer under this Act in relation to the fixation of rate of drawback under section 75;] 9. The appellant has misdeclared almost 11 MTs of goods. The explanation given is that onion being a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alse or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of goods. 13. On perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below, nothing is brought out to prove and establish that the appellant has knowingly and intentionally made any false documents. It is explained by them that the excess quantity was loaded in order to compensate the loss on account of drying of the onion which are perishable goods. Taking these facts into consideration, the penalty imposed under sec. 114AA is set aside. 14. In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the redemption fine from Rs.3,33,750/- to Rs.1,00,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
