2010 (9) TMI 1154 - HC - Customs

Export obligation - contravention of the aforesaid notification - Appellant claiming benefit of Notification 48/99-Cus., dated 29-4-2009 which required the appellant to export goods manufactured out of the material by way of fulfilment of export obligation - allegation was made that some of the export goods were not made out of the imported raw materials Held that - contention taken was that there was no evidence on record to show that the appellant had connived with M/s. Laddan Steelware Mfg. Co. for diversion of the imported goods, Tribunal has rightly relied upon the report of CRCL and therefore, did not find any merit in the appeal, appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of contravention of Notification 48/99-Cus.
2. Examination of goods by Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL).
3. Appeal against order-in-original dated 31-1-2005.
4. Request for re-testing of material.
5. Consideration of pleas raised before CESTAT.
6. Allegation of diversion of imported goods.
7. Procurement of local material for manufacturing utensils.

Analysis:

1. The appellant imported SS Coils claiming benefits under Notification 48/99-Cus., which required exporting goods manufactured from the material to fulfill export obligations. A show cause notice was issued, alleging non-compliance as some Coils were unaccounted for, and exported utensils were made from locally sourced material. The Commissioner of Customs upheld the demand and imposed a penalty in an order-in-original dated 31-1-2005.

2. The goods were examined by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), which formed the basis for the allegation that some exported goods were not made from the imported raw materials. The appellant's request for re-testing was not accepted, but this plea was not raised before the CESTAT, and thus cannot be considered for the first time on appeal.

3. The appellant appealed to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which dismissed the appeal on 3-7-2008. The appellant contended that several pleas were raised before the CESTAT, which were not considered. The Tribunal relied on the CRCL report and found no merit in the appeal, concluding that the appellant diverted imported material and used local material for manufacturing utensils.

4. The primary issues before the Tribunal were whether the appellant connived with another company for diversion of goods and whether the appellant used local material for manufacturing exported utensils. The Tribunal's decision was based on the CRCL report, and no substantial question of law was found in the appeal, leading to its dismissal.