2019 (2) TMI 1574 - AT - Customs

Export of Cow Crunch Upper Finished Leather - Appraising Officer felt that the leather may not satisfy the norms for prescribed finished leather vide DGFT Public Notice No. 3-ETC (PN)/92-97 dated 27.5.92 - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - The samples of the leather are required to be sent to the CLRI as per the requirement of DGFT Public Notice dated 27.5.1992. We find that this is a detail Public Notice running into around 28 pages. The Public Notice has given description of types of leathers, manufacturing norms, conditions and the requirements to be tested - The ld. counsel was at pains to argue that the said Public Notice discussed is outdated. Be that as it may, when that is the only method of ascertaining the correctness of the type of leathers declared, that too by a recognized institute of national importance, have to be accepted. Interestingly, we find that in the appeal filed by the appellant, the appellants have enclosed a subsequent copy of Public Notice No.21/2004 dated 1.12.2009 also issued by DGFT concerning the latest leather norms. It is therefore obvious that the concerned authorities have been also seized of the matter and have issued revised norms as per the said notification. The exports in the present case are before the Public Notice No. 21/2004 came to be introduced. The appellant has filed Miscellaneous Application requesting to send the samples for retesting - After a lapse of more than a decade we do not think that such testing would serve any purpose. The remnant samples may well have been disposed of by CLRI after a prescribed time limit Even if the samples are still available, the passage of time, namely of almost nine years would surely have caused at least some perceptible, if not irreversible changes in the physical or other characteristics of the samples. For these reasons, the miscellaneous application for retesting is dismissed. There is no infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below, for which reason, the impugned order is sustained - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal involving export of "Cow Crunch Upper Finished Leather"
- Reliance on CLRI report for non-compliance with prescribed norms
- Discrepancy in CLRI reports and appellant's submissions
- Outdated DGFT Public Notice and technology advancements
- Request for retesting of samples after a decade
- Reasonableness of redemption fine and penalty imposed

Analysis:
The appeals revolved around the export of "Cow Crunch Upper Finished Leather" where the Appraising Officer doubted compliance with prescribed norms and sent samples to CLRI for expert opinion. CLRI's report led to the confiscation of consignments under the Customs Act, with redemption allowed upon payment of duties, fines, and penalties. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the reliance on CLRI's report was unjustified due to discrepancies. The appellant highlighted that their samples had earlier been certified as satisfactory by CLRI, questioning the authenticity of the adverse report. The appellant also criticized the outdated DGFT Public Notice from 1992 and emphasized technological advancements since then.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel contended that the CLRI report was inaccurate and discriminatory, drawing parallels with medical test reports. However, the respondent's representative supported the reliance on CLRI's findings, stating they are the authorized agency. The Tribunal noted the requirement to send samples to CLRI as per the DGFT Public Notice, despite the appellant's claims of its obsolescence. The Tribunal emphasized that the CLRI reports, while contradictory, were based on samples sent by the appellant without following proper procedures.

The appellant's plea for retesting after a decade was dismissed, considering potential sample deterioration. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authorities' decisions reasonable, upholding the imposed fines and penalties as just and fair. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the lower authorities' orders. The judgment was pronounced on 26.02.2019 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, with detailed analysis and reasoning provided for each issue raised during the proceedings.