2008 (3) TMI 147 - AT - Customs

Commissioner is not justified in relying solely on the Port Trust records to find that Shipping Bill covered goods different from the ones shipped goods involved in all cases were examined and duly cleared for export u/s 51 concerned officer issued let export order & made report on the dates appearing in the Shipping Bill & only after examining goods - Moreover, it is on record that sale proceeds against the exports were received drawback claim not rejectable confiscation not justified

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in export dates leading to rejection of drawback claims and penalties.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI involved similar orders concerning discrepancies in export dates leading to the rejection of drawback claims and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner had found that the Shipping Bills filed by the exporters covered ready-made garments that were supposedly exported after 31.12.98, as per the Port Trust records. However, the examination reports and let export orders by customs officers were issued on or before 31.12.1998, and Bills of Lading were also dated the same. The Tribunal noted that the goods were examined and cleared for export under Section 51 of the Customs Act before the deadline and were loaded onto the vessel on the specified date. The officers confirmed the authenticity of their reports and orders, and there was no evidence of predated signatures on the Shipping Bills. Additionally, proceeds from the exports had been received, further supporting the conclusion that the exports did take place. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner's findings were not substantiated by official records and overturned the rejection of drawback claims and penalties, citing a similar decision in a previous case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, emphasizing the discrepancy in export dates and the validity of the export transactions.