By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 02, 2016: THE facts are that the appellant exported Industrial Garments Boiler Safety Suits Jackets 2000 pieces and Industrial Garments Boiler Safety Suit Cotton Pants 2000 pieces as per description in the Shipping Bill. While claiming drawback they claimed drawback separately on the Jackets & Pants. As per notes to the drawback schedule, the drawback is allowed on an "ensemble" which means a set of garments comprising of upper part and lower part.

The case of the Revenue is that the appellant have mis-declared the goods in the Shipping Bill to claim higher drawback and, therefore, they confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine and penalty u/s 113(i) and 114(iii) respectively of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order and, therefore, the exporter is before the CESTAT.

The Bench observed -

++ I find that there is no mis-declaration of description of goods in the Shipping Bill. Neither is there any mis-declaration of value. The claim of drawback separately on Jackets & Pants is an error but malafide intention cannot be ascribed to invoke penalty. Section 113(i) can be invoked when there is mi-declaration of description or value. In this case it is not so.

++ There being no willful mis-declaration on the part of the appellant, penalty is not sustainable. [Northern Plastic Ltd. - 2002-TIOL-604-SC-CUS & followed in ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-2201-CESTAT-MUM relied upon.]

The Order-in-Appeal was set aside & the appeal was allowed.

(See 2016-TIOL-311-CESTAT-MUM)