2002 (10) TMI 547 - AT - Customs

Export - DEPB - Appeal, Appellate order - Misdeclaration, Practice, Past-practice - Confiscation, Penalty

Summary

Issues:
- Mis-declaration of goods for DEPB benefit under specific group head.
- Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
- Interpretation of DEPB rates under group head 61 Sr. No. 503 to 506.

Analysis:
1. Mis-declaration of Goods for DEPB Benefit:
The appellants filed shipping bills declaring goods as aluminium foil paper backed under DEPB Scheme, but the goods were found to be aluminium foils interleaved with paper. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods, alleging intentional mis-declaration for extra DEPB benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, rejecting claims under Sr. No. 503 or 505 of DEPB group head 61. The appellants argued their past successful claims under Sr. No. 503 and lack of intention to deceive for higher benefits.

2. Confiscation and Penalty Imposition:
The revenue contended that as the goods were not as declared, DEPB benefits were not applicable. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected claims under Sr. No. 503 and 505. However, since the revenue did not appeal, the finding that the appellants were not entitled to benefits under Sr. No. 505 was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The goods were not aluminium foil paper backed as claimed, but were aluminium foils interleaved with paper, a distinction crucial for DEPB benefit eligibility.

3. Interpretation of DEPB Rates:
The DEPB rates under group head 61 Sr. No. 503 to 506 were examined. The appellants claimed benefits under Sr. No. 503 for aluminium foil paper backed, but the adjudicating authority determined the goods to fall under Sr. No. 505. The HSN Explanatory Notes clarified the differences between the two types of foils. The appellants provided evidence of past claims under Sr. No. 503, supporting their belief in the current declaration. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was based on the goods' actual composition and form, leading to the rejection of benefits under both Sr. No. 503 and 505.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants, setting aside the confiscation of goods and penalties. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate declaration for DEPB benefits, the distinction between different types of foils, and the necessity of aligning goods' actual composition with declared categories for benefit eligibility.