Page 208 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

886 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants would argue that the goods
which they have imported were covered by the SAFTA Certificate which they
have produced before the Learned adjudicating authority. Only a few goods
were found to be in excess of what was declared. For instance in respect of M/s.
Bishal Exports (Customs Appeal No. 77302 of 2019) what was declared was 7560
Trousers, 7120 Kids Trousers and 26060 Men’s Shorts. In addition to what was
declared, what was found during examination was an excess of 3133 Men’s
Shorts. Similarly in case of M/s. Dutta Enterprises what was declared in the Bill
of Entry and documents was 45519 Men’s T-Shirts, 9165 Men’s Trousers and
15,728 Men’s Shorts and 2428 Men’s jackets. In addition what was declared, dur-
ing examination Customs has found there were excess T-Shirts 6240 pieces and
shorts 1964 pieces. It is only these excess pieces which were not covered by the
SAFTA Certificate which would entitle them to the benefit of exemption notifica-
tion. It is only these excess pieces, which have not been declared in the Bills of
Entry and other documents.
7. However, the Learned adjudicating authority has ordered confisca-
tion of the entire consignment including those goods which have been correctly
declared in their Bills of Entry. Further, he has demanded and confirmed Cus-
toms duty on the entire consignment completely denying the benefit of exemp-
tion even with respect to those goods which are covered by the SAFTA certificate
which they have produced.
8. He would submit that these facts are not in dispute. In fact, these are
recorded in the impugned orders themselves. He would therefore argue that if at
all any action has to be taken it can be taken only in respect of the excess goods.
On the remaining goods which conformed to the SAFTA certificate, they are enti-
tled to the benefit of exemption notification. Such goods which are covered by
their declarations are also not liable for confiscation and no redemption fine can
be imposed on those goods. Similarly penalties, if any, imposed have to be reck-
oned only on such quantity of goods as are in excess.
9. He would further argue that the excess quantity which has been dis-
covered during examination by the Customs is a small fraction of the total quan-
tity imported amounting for less than 10% in terms of the total number of pieces.
As the excess quantity is very small, the same may also be condoned and the en-
tire confiscation proceedings as well as confirmation of demands may be set
aside.
10. In view of the above, he would pray for setting aside the impugned
order and allowing their appeals.
11. Per contra, Learned Authorized Representative for the department
supports the impugned order.
12. We have considered the arguments of both sides and perused the
records.
13. It is not in dispute and is evident from the records as well as the
impugned order that the appellant had misdeclared the quantity of goods and
had imported goods in excess of what was declared in the Bills of Entry and the
other documents. Country of origin certificate from Bangladesh (SAFTA certifi-
cate) which would entitle them to import goods under an exemption also cov-
ered such quantity of the goods as was declared in their Bills of Entry. What is in
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  208