2008 (2) TMI 725 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of duty foregone on imported fabric.
2. Confiscation of shirts and redemption fine.
3. Failure to fulfill export obligation and misdeclaration of goods under DEEC scheme.

Issue 1: Recovery of duty foregone on imported fabric
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, which ordered the recovery of duty foregone on imported fabric without quantifying the amount. The Commissioner confiscated shirts valued at Rs. 6,29,754/- and allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Commissioner directed the bank of the appellants to invoke the bank guarantee and issue a pay order/demand order of Rs. 33,96,000/- due to the failure of export obligation by the applicants.

Issue 2: Confiscation of shirts and redemption fine
The learned SDR argued that the applicants did not fulfill the export obligation and misrepresented the goods for export under the DEEC scheme. The goods declared as 100% linen dyed men's short sleeve shirts were found to be made of regenerated cellulose and bleached, contrary to the shipping bill description. This issue was revisited by the Tribunal, which had previously directed re-adjudication within three months based on available material if samples were not accessible for retesting. As the retest was not conducted by the lower authorities, the order was passed against the appellants. Despite no duty being quantified for recovery, the Commissioner's office directed the bank to encash the entire bank guarantee, which was deemed inappropriate. The Tribunal granted a stay on the operation of the impugned order and instructed the appellant to maintain the bank guarantee until the appeal's resolution.

Issue 3: Failure to fulfill export obligation and misdeclaration under DEEC scheme
The misdeclaration of goods for export under the DEEC scheme and the failure to meet the export obligation were significant concerns raised in the case. The discrepancy between the declared goods and the actual product led to the confiscation of the shirts and the imposition of a redemption fine. Despite the lack of quantified duty for recovery, the Commissioner's directive to encash the bank guarantee was deemed premature and not in accordance with proper recovery procedures. The Tribunal emphasized the need for accurate declaration of goods for export and adherence to export obligations under the relevant schemes.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurate declaration of goods for export, fulfillment of export obligations, and proper procedures for duty recovery. The Tribunal's decision to stay the operation of the order and maintain the bank guarantee until the appeal's resolution underscores the need for fair and just outcomes in customs-related matters.