Page 21 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] INDEX - 15th August, 2020 xix
PENALTY :
— Deficiency in export document - Omission to mention Central Excise
Tariff Heading of export goods on documents - HELD : Assessee
mentioned description of export goods as “Pump Set 10 H.P. (I.C. Engine
with Centrifugal Pump)” in ER-1 Returns - Said goods merit classification
under Tariff Item 8413 70 10 of Schedule to Central Excise Tariff -
However, assessee paid higher rate of duty (8% and 10%) applicable to
goods falling under Tariff Item 8408 90 90 ibid with description “Diesel
Engine with Centrifugal Pumps” - Assessee wilfully omitted
classification of export goods on Excise invoices and ARE-1s and chose to
pay higher rate of duty from Cenvat account so as to encash available
Cenvat credit by way of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules,
2002 - Lower Authorities correctly imposed penalty under Section 11AC
of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules,
2002 - Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 — In Re : Somson Exports
(G.O.I.) ........................................ 568
— Gold chains smuggling by first time offender, quantum of redemption
fine and penalty - See under REDEMPTION FINE AND PENALTY ...... 473
— imposable on carrier of Foreign currency in smuggling attempt - See
under FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT ............. 570
— on foreign exporter - Jurisdiction under Customs Act, 1962 - Extra-
terrestrial jurisdiction - Evasion of duty by misdeclaration - Imposition of
penalty on foreign exporter - Whether penalty under Section 112(a) of
Customs Act, 1962 can be imposed during period 2012-13 on exporter
who misdeclared goods located in Dubai, UAE - Conflicting decisions -
Matter referred to Larger Bench - Sections 1, 2(27) and 112(a) of Customs
Act, 1962 — Seville Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Tri. - Del.) .... 554
— on sick unit sustainable for failure to fulfill export obligation under EPCG
- See under EPCG SCHEME ............................ 449
— Smuggling of gold - Adjudication based on statement recorded by
appellant - No contention that statements were coerced - Finding of
Tribunal that statements admitting to involvement in smuggling activity
given before Customs Officer, never retracted and proved from
WhatsApp communication, proper - Penalty imposed rightly affirmed -
Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 — Mohammed Anif v. Commissioner of
Customs, Mangalore (Kar.) ................................ 514
— Smuggling of gold - Competent Authority to adjudicate -Value of gold
confiscated exceeding ` 5 lakhs - Penalty to be adjudicated by Principal
Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or a Joint
Commissioner of Customs - Additional Commissioner of Customs
included within definition of Commissioner of Customs - Order of
confiscation and levy of penalty by Additional Commissioner of Customs
not to be faulted - Sections 2(8), 112(a) and 122 of Customs Act, 1962 —
Mohammed Anif v. Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore (Kar.) ............... 514
— Smuggling of prohibited goods - Evidence - Foreign Currency concealed
inside inner linings of check in baggage - Apart from statement of
accused Shri Virender Verma recorded under Section 108 of Customs
Act, 1962, that impugned forex, proceeds of legal business in Hong Kong,
no corroboratory evidence on record to verify veracity of claim - Since
statement of accused not corroborated from evidence on record, finding
of adjudicating authority that accused, owner of forex remains
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  21