RATAN UDYOG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Ratan Udyog is whether the goods are liable for confiscation under the Customs Act and penalty is imposable for not declaring the content of the goods meant for export.

(2.) WHEN the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. It is observed from the appeal file that the appellants have never appeared in the past also. We, therefore, heard Smt. Reena Arya, learned SDR, and perused the records.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellants filed shipping bills No. 2414 dated 21 -9 -1994 for exporting 19724 pieces of ladies nighties valued at Rs. 19,08,080/ - which were declared as woven fabrics claiming draw -back @ 10% under Sr. No. 2707(A) of the draw -back schedule 1993 -94. Subsequently the appellants filed another shipping bill No. 2795D, dated 7 -10 -1994 for the said goods and now description was cotton knitted ladies nighty which attracted a lesser rate of draw -back under Sr. No. 2704. The Collector under the impugned order confiscated the impugned goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 4,00,000/ - and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/ - under Section 113 of the Customs Act The learned SDR submitted that when the goods were declared fabrics there was no reason for the appellants to describe them as woven fabrics except for the purpose of claiming more draw -back and therefore the mala fide intention is apparent and as such the goods have been rightly confiscated and penalty has rightly been imposed that neither the amount of redemption fine nor the penalty is on higher side considering the value of the impugned goods. The appellants in their memorandum of appeal have emphasized that after realizing their mistake of giving wrong description the clearing agent made a request for amendment in shipping bill No. 2414 on 5th, 6th and 27th October, 1996, that they had also brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner that duty draw -back would be 5% and not 10%. The appellants have emphasized that the revised shipping bill was not filed after the Customs authorities detected that the goods were not woven fabrics but it was the appellants who on their own rectified the mistake.