2020 (3) TMI 384 - HC - Customs

Recovery of Drawback - misdeclaration of the goods in the shipping bill - HELD THAT - Such ex-post facto obtaining of a fresh Report by the Assessee/Exporter, is of no relevance, because the fact remains that on the basis of the CLRI Report obtained in the contemporary period of actual export by the Assessee/Exporter, it was found that what was exported by the Assessee was not 'Nubuck Leather' as the process of snuffing to make 'Nubuck Leather' was not carried out. The subsequent change of declaration given by the Assessee to treat the same as 'Softy Upper Leather' vide letter dated 08 April, 2011, all the more confirms the earlier misdeclaration in the relevant documents at the time of actual export. The findings of facts by the learned Tribunal based on the aforesaid material are binding on us and cannot be said to be perverse in any manner and therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods in shipping bill, confiscation of goods under Customs Act, imposition of redemption fine and export duty, recovery of drawback, relevance of subsequent classification of goods.

In this case, the Assessee appealed against an order upholding the imposition of redemption fine, export duty, and recovery of drawback due to misdeclaration of goods in the shipping bill. The Tribunal confirmed that the goods exported did not match the description provided, leading to confiscation under Section 113(i) and (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found no confiscation under Section 113(d) for violation of prohibitions under Foreign Trade Policy. The imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 114, respectively, was upheld. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.

The Appellant argued that a subsequent report from CLRI confirmed the goods' compliance with declared norms, but the Court held that the ex-post facto report was irrelevant. The original CLRI report at the time of export found that the goods did not meet the requirements for Nubuck Leather. The Appellant's later classification of the goods as 'Softy Upper Leather' further confirmed the initial misdeclaration. The Court upheld the Tribunal's findings as not being perverse and dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked merit. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also dismissed.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of accurate declaration of goods in shipping documents and the consequences of misdeclaration under the Customs Act. It highlights that subsequent attempts to reclassify goods cannot override initial findings of non-compliance. The Court's decision underscores the need for exporters to adhere strictly to declared specifications to avoid penalties and confiscation of goods.