9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 364 - AT - CustomsDisallowance - DEPB benefit - Confiscation - Notification No. 34/97-Cus., dated 7-4-1997 - The goods having been eligible and entitled to DEPB benefit, DGFT as final authority granted appropriate credit to the appellant and such credits were found to be genuine in the hands of transferees thereof - There was no evidence on record to show that at any time Revenue has collected any sample of the goods exported by the appellants except the sample sent for opinion of DGFT relied upon by the Appellant - In absence of any evidence from any of the tractor manufacturers or the sample tested in any laboratory recognised by law, opinion of the DGFT authorities is not liable to be vitiated and Revenue did not challenge opinion of DGFT upon receipt of the same - Appeal is allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of DEPB benefit due to alleged mis-declaration of exported goods. 2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 3. Authority of DGFT's decision on export-related issues. 4. Validity of evidence and technical opinions presented by both parties. 5. Admissibility of DEPB credit based on the nature and description of the exported goods. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of DEPB Benefit Due to Alleged Mis-declaration The appellant contested the adjudication order dated 30-1-10, which disallowed the DEPB benefit of Rs. 36,31,489/- on the grounds of fraudulent mis-declaration of exported goods. The adjudication order also imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 60 lakh and a penalty of Rs. 36,31,489/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the DEPB scrips were earned against the export of goods correctly described as "Draw Bars," as confirmed by the DGFT in their communication dated 6-12-04. The DGFT's decision was based on consultations with technical authorities and was deemed final and binding as per Chapter 2 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009. Issue 2: Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine and penalty on the appellant for the alleged mis-declaration. However, proceedings against 13 others who bought the DEPB scrips from the appellant were dropped due to the lack of allegations in the show cause notice. The appellant argued that this inconsistency indicated that the scrips were not obtained fraudulently. Issue 3: Authority of DGFT's Decision The appellant emphasized that the DGFT is the final authority on issues related to export licenses, certificates, and permissions under the Export Import Policy. The DGFT's decision to classify the exported goods as "Draw Bars" should be binding on the Customs Authority. The appellant supported this argument by citing various technical opinions and certificates from recognized institutions, all confirming that the exported goods matched the description of "Draw Bars." Issue 4: Validity of Evidence and Technical Opinions The appellant presented multiple technical opinions and certificates from reputable institutions, such as the National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology and the Institute for Auto parts Technology, which confirmed that the goods were "Draw Bars." The appellant also pointed out that no samples were drawn by the Customs Authority from the export consignments for technical examination. The Revenue's contention that the goods were "Ball Mounts" was based on statements from individuals and lacked technical evidence. Issue 5: Admissibility of DEPB Credit The Revenue argued that the DEPB claim was inadmissible due to the mis-declaration of goods as "Draw Bars" instead of "Ball Mounts." However, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of any sample collection or technical tests by the Revenue to support this claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the DGFT's opinion, which classified the goods as "Draw Bars," was unchallenged and should be considered final. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's DEPB claim was legitimate and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not provide sufficient evidence to counter the DGFT's classification of the exported goods as "Draw Bars." The DGFT's decision, supported by multiple technical opinions, was deemed final and binding. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, reversing the adjudication order that denied the DEPB benefit and imposed fines and penalties. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to the finality of the DGFT's decisions in export-related matters.
|
