Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Vijay K. Jairath And Co. vs Cc on 4 August, 2004
JUDGMENT C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. In this case, the appellants had declared the impugned goods as "Cotton Knitted Track Suit", which on verification was found to be not containing any cotton. The test report from the Deputy Chief Chemist indicated the goods to be "Dyed Knitted Fabric made of Polyester Filament and Spun Yarn". The case against the appellants is that, they mis-declared the description of the consignment to claim the DEPB at higher rate and also mis-declared the value to claim the DEPB on a higher price. The impugned order has been passed confiscating the impugned goods but allowing the same to be taken back to town on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has also been imposed.
2. It is the contention of the appellants that the impugned goods are neither prohibited nor dutiable and hence in terms of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (EP). Mumbai v. Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (155) ELT 4 (SC), the same cannot be confiscated nor any penalty can be imposed.
3. On the other hand, the learned SDR, argues that the adjudicating Commissioner has relied upon the detailed decision of the same Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, 2003 (155) ELT 423 (SC), in terms of which the goods which are mis-declared have to be treated as prohibited goods and the same are liable for action under the Customs Act.
4. After hearing both sides and going through the case records including the cited decisions, we are of the view that the impugned order has rightly invoked the Apex Court's decision in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, supra, and there is no infirmity in the imposition of fine and penalty. However, considering the fact that the impugned goods were in any case eligible for DEPB benefit at a lower rate on the correct value and the difference in benefit, which would have accrued to the appellants if the mis-declared goods were allowed to be exported, would have been around Rs. 2 lakhs, we are of the view that the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed are excessive. Accordingly, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 1 lakh (rupees one lakh only) and penalty to Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only).
5. The appeal is dismissed except for reduction in redemption fine and penalty amounts, as indicated above.