Decided on March 20,2015

R.P.S. Clothing And Linen (P) Ltd. Appellant
C.C. (Export) Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



D.N. Panda, J. - (1.)EXPORTERS M/s. R.P.S. Clothing & Linen Pvt. Ltd. when attempted to export silk carpets presenting exporting documents on 5.1.2010 declaring export of 213 pieces and 96 pieces of silk carpet in terms of Shipping Bill No. 2104530 and 2104768 both dated 2.1.2010 declaring FOB of Rs. 57,92,394/ - and Rs. 92,90,813/ - claiming duty drawback of Rs. 8,39,897/ - and Rs. 13,47,168/ - respectively it was found that neither such quantities were available in the exporting consignments nor the values declared were correct.
(2.)UPON detection by customs as above, immediately on 6.1.2010, exporters filed revised Shipping Bill declaring lower quantities of the above goods covered by the above said Shipping Bills. The revision revealed that there was excess declaration of 142 pieces in Shipping Bill No. 2104530 and 64 pieces in Shipping Bill No. 2104768 originally filed. Customs noticed that there was resultant miss declaration of the quantity and value of goods meant for export. The higher value declared in original shipping bills without really higher quantity of goods consigned resulted in higher claim of drawback of Rs. 14,90,684/ - which remained unrebutted by appellant before customs authorities except the only plea that due to clerical error wrong invoice and wrong packing list were sent along with the Shipping Bill for which revised Shipping Bills were filed.
Appellant pleaded in the course of appeal hearing before Tribunal that there was no deliberate miss declaration made. Therefore no mis -construction is possible to hold since appellant had not misrelated the quantity as well as export value of goods nor the appellant contravened the law. The invoice and packing list were revised, when the mistake came to its notice. On such premise, appellants prayer was that drawback being allowed on the basis of Shipping Bill but not on invoice value, the appellant having declared proper value in the Shipping Bills, it is neither liable to redemption fine nor penalty. Therefore, learned Commissioner did not impose any redemption fine. But levy of penalty of Rs. 14,90,684/ - by him under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 was also unwarranted when the appellant has not made any deliberate miss declaration.

(3.)PER contra, Revenues contention is that only upon detection by customs, miss declaration was unearthed. Had that not been done, then the miss declared quantity and value could not have been surfaced and appellant would have made claim of higher amount of duty drawback at the cost of the exchequer. When entries in invoice and packing list details were wrong, that brought out the case of miss declaration. No prudent exporter shall export higher quantity than the real exportable quantity when he was not paid for such higher quantity. Lower quantity was evidently exportable as per revised invoice as well as packing list filed subsequent to check by customs. Therefore deliberate miss declaration made by appellant invited provision of Section 113(i) and Section 113(ii) of Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the appellant is not only liable to redemption fine in view of confiscation warranted by law, but also liable to penalty under law. When learned Commissioner did not impose redemption fine, Revenue has come in appeal while Assessees appeal is against imposition of penalty of Rs. 14,90,684/ - only.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.