M/S Modern Terry Towels Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Ahmedabad
- CitationAppeal No.C/170/2007-DB
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A mis-declaration in a shipping bill, namely describing exported goods as 100% cotton when they are predominantly but not wholly cotton, attracts a penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 even where the declaration is made without intent to claim a higher DEPB benefit, since the inaccuracy in the declaration itself constitutes the mis-declaration. Where the adjudicating authority has already denied the DEPB claim and the goods have been exported rather than confiscated, a penalty for the mis-declaration may be reduced in proportion to the consequences that have already followed from it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Appeal No.C/170/2007-DB [Arising out of OIA No.39/2007-AHD/Cus/Commr(A)/AHD, dt.30.03.2007, passed by Commissioner of Customs, (Appeals), Ahmedabad]
M/s Modern Terry Towels Ltd Appellant
Vs
Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: None For Respondent: Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision:07.09.2015
Order No.A/11270/2015, dt.07.09.2015
Per: P.K. Das
None appears on behalf of the Appellant. There is no application for adjournment. As the matter is oldone of 2007, we proceed to decide the appeal.
2. The Adjudicating authority denied the benefit of DEPB claim of Rs.62,164.06. It has not confiscated the goods as the goods were exported. A penalty of Rs.20,000.00 was imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of the goods.
3. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the Appellant filed shipping bill No.1207580, dt.04.05.2006 for clearance of 100% cotton Terry Towels and claimed DEPB benefit. On scrutiny of the documents, i.e. shipping bills, it is seen that the Appellant had wrongly declared the export items 100% Cotton Terry Towels (100% Cotton Ring Spun).
4. In the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant, it is contended that since the goods were predominantly composed to cotton, it was described as 100% by mistake, without any intent behind the said mistake. It is further contended that the declaration in the shipping bill as 100% cotton is an unintentional mistake and is not with a view to claim higher DEPB, which has been claimed at the lowest of the rates under Product Code 89. We find that there is a mis-declaration in the shipping bills and therefore, imposition of penalty is warranted. However, as the Adjudicating authority has already denied the DEPB claim and therefore, we reduce the penalty to Rs.10,000.00 (Rs.Ten Thousands only)
5. The appeal filed by the Appellant is disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb 3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free