2002 (2) TMI 449 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Discharge of export obligation under Notification No. 203/92-Cus.
2. Allegation of disposal of imported goods before export obligation fulfillment.
3. Allegation of non-export or non-receipt of exported goods at Dubai.

Issue 1: Discharge of export obligation under Notification No. 203/92-Cus.
The case involved a dispute over whether the respondent fulfilled their export obligation under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. The respondent imported stainless steel billets/ingots and rolls duty-free under the DEEC scheme. They provided proof of exporting alloy steel bar sections to Dubai to fulfill the obligation, which was accepted by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. However, Customs Authorities later issued a show cause notice alleging non-export and disposal of goods before fulfillment. The adjudicating authority accepted the respondent's defense, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Allegation of disposal of imported goods before export obligation fulfillment
The appellant was accused of disposing of imported goods before fulfilling the export obligation, which violated the notification. The defense argued that the goods were processed, and a cash payment for conversion was made before the export earnings were realized. However, the investigation found the payment unreliable as the recipient was untraceable. The appellant failed to prove that the imported material was not disposed of before meeting the export obligation.

Issue 3: Allegation of non-export or non-receipt of exported goods at Dubai
The appeal also raised concerns regarding the actual export of goods mentioned in the shipping bills. The adjudicating authority noted that the goods were examined during export and found in order, but the department questioned the accuracy of the declaration. Despite verification at Dubai confirming receipt and clearance of goods, the Revenue persisted with the allegation of non-export. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the appeal, rejecting it due to lack of substantiated claims and reliance on general grounds without concrete proof.

The judgment highlighted discrepancies in the allegations made by the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of factual evidence and proper verification before raising accusations. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had fulfilled the export obligation and dismissed the appeal due to the lack of supporting evidence.