2017 (3) TMI 542 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods - DEPB benefit - appellants attempted export by misdeclaring the export product as Non-Alloy Steel Forgings (Rough) where as goods are of the description Hot Rolled Low Carbon Steel Billets with the malafide intention of availing undue DEPB benefit - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - the Revenue has attempted to make the case of missdeclaration without there being enough evidences to support the said missdeclaration on the part of the appellants - the contents of the test reports in respect of description of the goods, where there are rival claims by both the sides, do not have sufficient credibility and cannot be made conclusively applicable to the subject goods. Therefore, the Revenue s case on misdeclaration of the description of goods cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Misdeclaration of export goods
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalties
- Capacity of production of the manufacturer
- Reliability of test reports
- Credibility of Chartered Engineer's report

Misdeclaration of Export Goods:
The case involved four appellants appealing against an Adjudication Order where a redemption fine and penalties were imposed for misdeclaring export goods as Non-Alloy Steel Forgings instead of Hot Rolled Low Carbon Steel Billets. The Revenue alleged misdeclaration for availing undue DEPB benefit.

Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalties:
The impugned order imposed fines and penalties on the appellants for the alleged misdeclaration. The penalties varied for the different appellants based on their involvement in the export process.

Capacity of Production of the Manufacturer:
The Revenue doubted the manufacturer's capacity to produce the declared goods, claiming a Chartered Engineer's report stated it was not possible for the factory to manufacture such a quantity of forged steel products.

Reliability of Test Reports:
Various test reports from different institutions were submitted as evidence. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the reports, questioning their credibility and ability to conclusively determine the nature of the exported goods.

Credibility of Chartered Engineer's Report:
The appellants contested the Chartered Engineer's report, claiming it was factually incorrect and motivated. The Tribunal found contradictions in the report and concluded that it lacked full credibility to sustain the Revenue's case.

In the judgment, the Tribunal carefully analyzed the facts, submissions, and case laws cited. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the misdeclaration allegations. The test reports lacked credibility, and the Chartered Engineer's report was deemed unreliable. Relying on previous case laws, the Tribunal allowed all appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants.