2008 (9) TMI 312 - AT - Customs

Export without Licence - goods entered for export were found on by the Scientists of CLRI to be not conforming to the norms. Export product did not have protective coat and lacked finish. Goods did not conform to the declaration of finished leather. As the competent experts in the field categorically opined that the product did not conform to the prescribed norms to qualify for export without licence, the attempt to export such goods claiming inadmissible drawback involves violations attracting confiscation under Section 113(d) & (h), (i) & (ii) of the Act. Held that the fine and penalty ordered are reasonable and do not call for any interference.

Summary

Issues: Attempted export without license, non-conformity to prescribed norms for export, confiscation of goods, imposition of fine and penalty, adequacy of evidence.

Attempted Export Without License:
The case involved M/s. Devi Enterprises attempting to export "Abirami Mark S/C Goat Suede Upper Finished Leather" to Italy without the required license. The Central Leather Institute (CLRI) certified that the sample did not meet the norms for export laid down in a specific Public Notice. The Commissioner confiscated the goods under Section 113(d), (h), (i), and (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, for this violation. An option to redeem the consignment on payment of a fine of Rs.15,000/- was offered, along with a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 114 (i), (ii), and (iii) of the Act.

Non-Conformity to Prescribed Norms for Export:
The appellants argued that the communication from CLRI was not a test certificate but a letter based on visual examination, and deficiencies in the product did not necessarily mean it failed the prescribed norms. They contended that the absence of a protective coat did not automatically classify the leather as semi-finished. However, the experts from CLRI found that the goods did not conform to the prescribed norms for export, specifically lacking a protective coat and finish, thus not qualifying as finished leather. The Tribunal found the expert opinion conclusive in determining the non-conformity of the goods.

Confiscation of Goods, Fine, and Penalty:
Despite the absence of representation from the appellants, the Tribunal reviewed the case records and upheld the confiscation of the goods, imposition of the fine, and penalty. The Tribunal noted that the attempt to export goods that did not meet the prescribed norms warranted confiscation under the relevant sections of the Customs Act. The Tribunal differentiated this case from a previous judgment involving similar products, emphasizing the specific non-conformity in this instance. The Tribunal deemed the fine and penalty reasonable and declined to interfere with the orders.

Adequacy of Evidence:
The Tribunal considered the expert opinion from CLRI as crucial evidence in determining the non-conformity of the goods to the prescribed norms for export. The Tribunal found the expert assessment to be authoritative, leading to the decision to dismiss the appeal filed by M/s. Devi Enterprises for attempting to export goods without the necessary license and failing to meet the required export norms.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai highlights the key issues of attempted export without a license, non-conformity to prescribed norms, confiscation of goods, imposition of fine and penalty, and the adequacy of evidence considered in reaching the final decision.