2009 (3) TMI 769 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake (ROM) - Misdeclaration of exports - Export - Attempt to illegal export, proof

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the order A/82-85/WZB/AHD/2009

Analysis:
1. Rectification of Mistake Application: The judgment deals with an application for rectification of mistake filed by the appellants regarding the order A/82-85/WZB/AHD/2009, dated 13-1-09. The appellants sought rectification based on the submission that they had only provided a check list for the shipping bill and not the actual shipping bill. They argued that the goods were examined after their request to take back the goods, and the test results revealed that the goods were not basmati rice as ordered. The appellants contended that since no shipping bill had been filed and the examination was conducted after their request to take back the goods, their case should not be considered an attempt to export.

2. Examination and Findings: The Tribunal found that a common order was passed against four appeals where exporters had declared goods as basmati rice, but examination revealed them to be non-basmati rice. In this specific case, it was noted that the letter relied upon by the appellants mentioned the buyer canceling the order. Despite the appellants' claim that no shipping bill was filed, both the Customs House Agent (CHA) and the appellants' letters referred to a specific shipping bill number. This discrepancy raised doubts about the factual basis of the consultant's submission. The Tribunal emphasized that once goods are brought to the customs area, any attempt to export is established. Therefore, the order treated the offense as an attempt to export, and the Tribunal found no mistake in the original order. Consequently, the application for rectification of mistake was rejected.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the rectification of mistake application in the context of discrepancies regarding the filing of a shipping bill and the nature of the exported goods. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the factual inconsistencies presented by the appellants and the legal implications of attempting to export goods from the customs area. The decision highlighted the importance of accurate documentation and the consequences of misrepresentation in export transactions.