2005 (11) TMI 337 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the common adjudicating order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding export of goods under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme.
- Confiscation of goods, disallowance of DEPB credit, and imposition of penalties based on misdeclaration of goods as new when they were old and used machinery parts.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed appeals against the adjudicating order that confiscated goods and disallowed DEPB credit due to misdeclaration of old and used machinery parts as new under the DEPB Scheme. The assessments were challenged on the grounds of finality, but it was revealed that they were provisional. The show cause notice explicitly stated the provisional nature of assessments, leading to the rejection of the appellants' contention. Additionally, the copies of Shipping Bills provided by the appellants were not authenticated, indicating an attempt to mislead the tribunal.

2. Evidence presented showed that the appellants did not have arrangements to manufacture the goods in question, as there was no electric connection in their unit during the dispute period. The appellants' claim of having a generator set was refuted by the limited working hours of the set, making it implausible to manufacture the disputed quantity of goods. Contrary to the appellants' assertion of having a balance of previously manufactured goods, no statutory records supported this claim. Statements from various sources, including an Export Officer and other employees, confirmed that the consignments contained old machinery parts misrepresented as new in commercial documents. The investigation revealed purchases of scrap old parts by the appellants, further strengthening the case against them.

3. The tribunal found no merit in the appellants' arguments and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals. The evidence presented, including statements and investigative findings, supported the conclusion that the goods exported were old and used machinery parts falsely declared as new. The lack of manufacturing arrangements, contradictory statements, and purchase of scrap old parts collectively established the appellants' misrepresentation and upheld the penalties imposed. The judgment highlights the importance of authenticity in documentation and the consequences of misdeclaration in export transactions under the DEPB Scheme.