ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The appellants sought to export the impugned goods declaring the same as Polypropylene Woven Fabrics in the shipping bills claiming DEPB benefit @ 22% against Sr. No. 86 of Plastic Group-63.
2. It is the case of the department that the impugned goods are Durries and are not covered under the DEPB scheme. The department has also alleged over valuation. In view of the fact that the shipping bills were filed in July 1999 and the appellants now want the confiscated goods back to town, the export orders having lapsed, the issues of coverage under the specific DEPB entry and over valuation are of academic interest at this stage. We, however, find that the fine of Rs. 25 Lakhs and the penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs imposed by the Commissioner are excessive. The appellants could have been allowed to export the consignments and the department could have decided appropriate classification of the goods under the DEPB scheme and also the appropriate valuation. We do not find any justification for not allowing the export and ordering the goods back to town after more than a year of filing the shipping bills. We also note that the date of the impugned order is 23/05/2000 whereas it is issued almost three months later on 18/08/2000. Such action on the part of the customs authorities is not allowing export of goods otherwise freely exportable and the delay caused in taking a decision on the same are inexplicable.
3. After considering all aspects of the case, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 25 Lakhs to Rs. 1 Lakh and allow the appellants to take the impugned goods back to town on payment of such fine. We also reduce the penalty from Rs. 5 Lakhs to Rs. 1 Lakh and order appropriation of the pre-deposit of Rs. 1 Lakh already made by the appellants towards the same.
4. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Pronunced in Court)