SERVEWEL EXPORTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LD . counsel for the appellant submits that there were only two pieces of antique valued Rs. 883/ - in the consignment meant for export along with other 673 items of furnitures. Such antiques were found to be prohibited goods, for which those were confiscated. Furniture meant for export were subject to claim of drawback. But that was contended by the Department to be denied for contravention of Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962. Partly allowing such appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) imposed redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs for redemption of furniture. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 114AA of the said Act followed by a further penalty of Rs. 2,500/ - under Section 114(4) thereof for exporting prohibited goods. Appellant contends that the impositions are exorbitant since the value of such antique was only Rs. 883/ -.

(2.) ON the other hand, Revenue submits that the ld. Commissioner has passed an appropriate order.

(3.) UNDISPUTED fact on record is that two antiques valued at Rs. 883 were concealed under 673 old and used furniture attempted to be exported claiming drawback. Customs found that such antiques were prohibited goods and liable to confiscation. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that such a low value goods were not conceivable to be concealed for which conclusion of ld. adjudicating authority was wrong. Accordingly, he held that confiscation of 673 items of furniture was unwarranted. His finding is totally contradictory when he holds that under Section 103(f) of the Customs Act, 1962 old and used furniture were not eligible to draw back claim for which those were liable to confiscation. It is strange that how the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) came to a conclusion that the small value goods does not cause prejudice to the interests of justice when those prohibited goods were attempted to be exported. Once there was mis -declaration of description of goods, that calls for confiscation. Therefore, ld. Commissioner's finding is erroneous in so far as non -concealment of the antique is concerned. The materials on record suggest that the antiques were two pillars with engraved architecture therein and the 673 furnitures were old and used. It is surprising how ld. Commissioner reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 12 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs when there was a deliberate mis -declaration of the goods in the shipping bills. But unfortunately, Revenue is not in appeal. Accordingly, redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed against the mis -declaration of drawback is confirmed. Penalties of Rs. 2,500/ - and Rs. 1 lakh imposed do not appear to be disproportionate when gravity of the matter is looked into. Therefore, those two penalties are also confirmed. Appeal is dismissed accordingly.