2008 (6) TMI 488 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for duty drawback on exported goods.
2. Misdeclaration of goods' description, quality, and value.
3. Confiscation of goods under Section 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act.
4. Applicability of Section 76(1)(b) of the Customs Act.
5. Compliance with the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act and Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Duty Drawback on Exported Goods:
The appellants filed shipping bills under a drawback claim for the export of ready-made garments (RMG). However, upon examination by DRI officers, the goods were found to be old and used garments from various origins, making them ineligible for duty drawback under Rule 3 of the Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1995. The prevailing market value (PMV) of the goods was significantly lower than the declared FOB value, leading to the conclusion that the duty drawback claimed was inadmissible.

2. Misdeclaration of Goods' Description, Quality, and Value:
The Tribunal initially ruled that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and 113(i) due to the lack of misdeclaration. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Tribunal, emphasizing that misdeclaration of value, quality, and description in the shipping bill constitutes a contravention of Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Rules and Section 11(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The examination report revealed that the goods were old and used garments, contradicting the declared description of RMG, thus establishing misdeclaration.

3. Confiscation of Goods under Section 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act:
The Supreme Court's judgment in Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs clarified that misdeclaration of export goods' value, quality, and description attracts the provisions of Section 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal, upon reconsideration, upheld the confiscation of the goods under these sections, as the goods were found to be "prohibited goods" due to non-compliance with the prescribed conditions for export. The goods were also liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) as they did not correspond in material particulars with the entry made under the Act.

4. Applicability of Section 76(1)(b) of the Customs Act:
Section 76(1)(b) disallows drawback when the value of export goods is less than the drawback claimed. Given that the PMV of the goods was lower than the declared value, the duty drawback was disallowed. The Tribunal affirmed that there was no provision for confiscation under Section 76, but the misdeclaration warranted confiscation under other relevant sections.

5. Compliance with the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act and Rules:
The appellants' misdeclaration violated Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act and Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Rules. The goods were not in accordance with the declared terms of the export contract, making them "prohibited goods" under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods and rejected the appeals.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order dated 23-11-2000, disallowing the duty drawback and confiscating the export consignments with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine. The appeals were rejected, affirming the findings of misdeclaration and ineligibility for duty drawback.

← Previous Next →