2010 (9) TMI 305 - AT - Customs

Demand DEEC scheme Non-fulfillment of export obligation - Revenue s claim that the shipping bill manipulated indicate that they have fulfilled the export obligation - export promotion copy of the Shipping indicates FOB value as Rs. 30,55,104/- against the quantity of 37,000 Kgs. of exports, original copy of shipping bill indicates the FOB value of Rs. 3,05,510/- against the export of 7000 Kgs - shipping bill is not denied by the appellant, then it would indicate that the appellant had not fulfilled the export obligation undertaken by them when they imported the goods against DEEC licence - absence of any fulfillment of export obligation, the appellant liable to discharge the duty liability on the inputs which forgone by the Revenue along with their interest thereof - confiscation of the imported goods - quantity of imported goods have been used for manufacturing of the goods which are exported - confiscation is set aside

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-original dated 15-9-2005 regarding duty-free import of parts of measurement tapes, fulfillment of export obligation conditions, alleged forgery of shipping bill, duty foregone by Revenue department, penalty, interest, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, discrepancies in export obligation fulfillment.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute over duty liability on imported goods not used to fulfill export obligations as per a DEEC license. The appellant claimed that the export promotion copy of Shipping Bill No. 556 was correct, while the Revenue alleged manipulation. The original shipping bill showed a lower FOB value and weight compared to the export promotion copy. Customs records and registers supported the Revenue's claim, indicating discrepancies in the appellant's submissions. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to fulfill export obligations, leading to duty liability and upheld the penalty imposed.

Regarding confiscation of goods, as the imported goods were not available for confiscation and some had been used for manufacturing exported goods, confiscation was deemed unnecessary. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation order. The impugned order was upheld in confirming duty demand, interest, and penalty, while confiscation was reversed. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.