2008 (12) TMI 187 - AT - Customs

Import DEEC Scheme - Appellant firm applied for advance licence on the basis of export order said to have been received by them. For supplying the readymade garments as per the order the fabric required as per the application made by the appellant firm is only 97 GSM. A variation of plus or minus 10% is permitted in terms of the licence. The maximum GSM of the fabric required for the export order is only 106.7. In all the cases GSM was on the higher side Held that - . It is a clear case of importing fabrics of different specifications than what was required for the export product. This is against the letter and spirit of DEEC Scheme enabling import of the raw material duty free in advance confiscation of goods upheld demand confirmed and penalty imposed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, consisting of Members M. Veeraiyan and P.K. Das, heard an appeal arising from order-in-original No. 47/2005 dated 9-6-2005. The appellant firm imported fabrics under an advance license but was found to have imported fabrics with a GSM exceeding the permissible limit. The consignment was also found to have been attempted to be cleared clandestinely from the customs area using a forged gate pass. The tribunal noted that the imported fabrics did not match the specifications required for the export product, which was against the DEEC Scheme. The tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods, reduced the redemption fine, upheld the duty demand, and reduced the penalties imposed on the appellant firm, Shri E.K. Raju, and B.N. Jha. The decision was pronounced on 3-12-2005. The tribunal found that the appellants were aware of the discrepancies and were involved in the attempt to clear the consignment through underhand means. The penalties were reduced but the confiscation of the goods and duty demand were upheld. The tribunal found that the appellants were attempting to import goods that did not conform to the license issued to them and were involved in a scheme to clear the consignment without proper examination, using forged documents. The tribunal emphasized that the goods did not match the specifications required for the export product, which was a violation of the DEEC Scheme. The penalties were reduced, but the confiscation of the goods and duty demand were upheld. The decision was made on 3-12-2005.