2003 (9) TMI 378 - AT - Customs

EXIM - DEPB credit - Eligibility for - Jurisdiction of Customs authorities - Confiscation and penalty - Misdeclaration

Summary

Issues:
Misdeclaration of goods under DEPB Scheme leading to confiscation and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The case involved the misdeclaration of goods under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme, which led to the confiscation of goods and imposition of a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Accelerated Graphic Processor (AGP card), exported the AGP card under the DEPB Scheme but faced allegations of misdeclaration by the Customs Department. The Commissioner found that the goods were not entitled to DEPB under the specified product code, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 9 lakhs under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Upon detailed examination, it was found that the Customs Department's role was limited to verifying the correctness of the exporter's declaration regarding the goods' description, quantity, and value at the time of export. The responsibility of determining the entitlement of DEPB credit rested with the licensing authorities, not the Customs. The Tribunal highlighted that the Customs could not sit in judgment over the decision regarding the quantum of DEPB credit to be granted, emphasizing the need to report any discrepancies to the DGFT for further action.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the description in the DEPB Schedule regarding 'PC Boards' did not have any qualifications or restrictions, potentially covering both plain/unpopulated and populated printed circuit boards. The Commissioner's finding that the exported goods were misdeclared as a fully assembled component of a computer system was deemed unsubstantiated, lacking clear evidence or expert reports to support the claim of misdeclaration.

Additionally, the interpretation of Rule 14 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 by the Commissioner was found to be incorrect. The Tribunal clarified that the liability for confiscation of goods under Section 113(d) and/or 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be upheld in this case. Consequently, if goods were not deemed liable for confiscation, the penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained, leading to the setting aside of the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures and responsibilities under the DEPB Scheme and Customs regulations to avoid misinterpretations and unjust penalties.