9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 467 - AT - CustomsFraudulent availment of Duty Drawback - evasion of payment of export duty - switching of the samples sent / taken to the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) for getting favourable certification for the goods as Finished Leather - allegation of fraudulent export of Semi-finished Leather in the guise of Finished Leather - HELD THAT - The issue in the case on hand is already decided by this Tribunal in M/s. Karpaga Leathers and six others vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai in Final Order Nos. 40268-40274/2022 dated 30.06.2022 2022 (7) TMI 104 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that Revenue has not satisfactorily and effectively shook the first report of the CLRI dated 07.10.2016 and hence, it has to be held that the norms and conditions laid down under the Public Notice No. 21/2009-14 dated 01.12.2009 are satisfied, as opined by the expert. The impugned order is set aside and so also the various demands confirmed therein and the appeal is allowed.
Issues:
Allegations of switching samples for fraudulent export of goods as 'Finished Leather'; Confirmation of demands raised in Show Cause Notice; Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding demands. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai dealt with an appeal filed by an exporter of leather goods against a Show Cause Notice alleging switching of samples to facilitate fraudulent export of 'Semi-finished Leather' as 'Finished Leather'. The Notice accused the exporter of evading export duty and misusing duty drawback incentives. The Tribunal noted that officers from the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch conducted a surprise check at the Container Freight Station and sealed consignments of finished leather meant for export. Subsequently, samples were sent to the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) for testing. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of the CLRI reports in determining the authenticity of the goods. The exporter had approached the High Court, which allowed the export subject to conditions. The Joint Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demands in the Show Cause Notice, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the appellant's advocate, referencing a previous case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal compared the CLRI reports and Mahazar dated 14.10.2016 to assess the veracity of the allegations. It noted discrepancies in the reports and raised questions about the preservation and handling of samples. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence establishing the switching of samples and the source of the sample sent to the CLRI for testing. Based on these factors, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to disprove the first CLRI report, thereby undermining the basis of the case against the exporter. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and the demands confirmed therein. In the absence of any new evidence or change in circumstances, the Tribunal applied the precedent set in the previous case to the current appeal. The Tribunal found no variance in the facts between the cases, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and the confirmed demands. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal pronounced the operative part of the Order in open court on 07.07.2022.
|
