CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2015) 07 SC CK 0025

Commissioner Of Customs, Amritsar vs Ess Kay International

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 16 July 2015 · Citation: (2016) 342 ELT 3

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 6623 of 2005
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 324 words
1.

Show cause notice dated 25-11-1999 was issued to the respondent herein on the ground that while export of "knitted woollen shawls (Dyed)" as an obligation under the Advance Licence No. P/L/0021136, dated 8-5-1997, the respondent filed Shipping Bill No. 4319, dated 22-5-1999 wherein there was a mis-declaration in respect of the quantity as well as description of the goods. The consignment was seized and taken into possession by the customs staff and action was taken against the respondent when it was found that there was a mis-declaration of goods. Since under the aforesaid Advance Licence, the respondent was also under the legal obligation to export knitted woollen shawls (Dyed) manufactured out of 5,000 kg. woollen yarn which was imported duty free, the appellant demanded excise duty.

2.

In the appeal against the said order, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "CESTAT") confirmed the findings of the Adjudicating Authority in so far as they pertained to the mis-declaration in respect of quantity as well as description of the goods in the Shipping Bill No. 4319, dated 22-5-1999. However, at the same time, the CESTAT also found that the export obligation was complemented by the respondent when another export consignment on 31-5-1999 which was cleared on 17-7-1999 vide Shipping Bill No. 00325/99, dated 31-5-1999 at ICD, Chherata, Amritsar and, therefore, no duty could be demanded on the ground that the respondent had committed breach in the discharge of export obligation.

3.

In so far as mis-declaration in respect of quantity as well as description of the goods in Shipping Bill No. 4139, dated 22-5-1999 is concerned, after confirming the findings to that effect, the CESTAT reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 3,00,000/- lakhs and personal penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

4.

We are not inclined to interfere with the discretionary power exercised by the CESTAT in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

5.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.