9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Denial of drawback claim 2. Confiscation of goods 3. Imposition of penalty Analysis: The case involved the appellants filing shipping bills for the export of articles made of polypropylene in a format intended for duty drawback claim. However, they had actually been availing the benefit of Cenvat credit for the consignment. The issue did not pertain to duty drawback but focused on the redemption fine and penalty. The Joint Commissioner of Customs rejected the drawback, confiscated the goods, and imposed a redemption fine and personal penalties on the exporting firm and its partner. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal. The appellant contended that the shipping bills were mistakenly filed in the wrong format, with the availing of Cenvat credit evident from the documents submitted. The appellant's representative argued that the request to rectify the format error was made promptly after filing the bills, within three days. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants were not claiming duty drawback and that the error in the shipping bills was inadvertent. It was noted that no fraudulent intent could be attributed to the appellants as the Revenue had discovered the Cenvat credit details from the submitted documents. The Tribunal agreed that the authorities should have allowed the correction of the format instead of proceeding with confiscation and penalties. In light of the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of goods and the imposed penalty on both the exporting firm and its partner. The appeals were allowed, and the stay petitions were disposed of accordingly. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the intent behind errors in documentation and the necessity for authorities to exercise discretion in such cases to prevent undue penalties when no fraudulent activity is involved.
|
