9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Proceedings dropped against respondent for alleged violation of DEPB scheme - Confiscation of goods exported - Imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The appeal filed by the revenue challenges the dropping of proceedings against the respondent concerning the export of Hand Tools under the DEPB scheme. The respondent exported goods valued at Rs. 2,34,75,035 but failed to bring in Foreign exchange of Rs. 1,79,61,955, admitting to forging BRCs to avail DEPB benefits. The department alleged that the respondent did not realize the declared Foreign Exchange and forged BRCs. The authorities issued a show cause notice for confiscation of goods and penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings, prompting the revenue's appeal. The Customs Act, 1962, specifically Section 113, governs confiscation of goods meant for export. The section outlines various scenarios where export goods are liable to confiscation, including attempted exports from unauthorized places, contravention of export routes, and misdeclaration of goods. In this case, the respondent's declaration was not disputed, and there were no allegations of misdeclaration. The show cause notice focused on the alleged forgery of BRCs to benefit from the DEPB scheme. The DGFT was separately addressing this violation, which did not automatically render the export consignment liable for confiscation. The adjudicating authority's decision was deemed clear and justified, warranting no interference. After considering the circumstances, the judge found no grounds to overturn the order-in-original. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of adherence to legal provisions governing exports and the significance of accurate documentation to avoid penalties and confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
