9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 325 - AT - CustomsBenefit of Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) - Seeking provisional release of goods - Mis-declaration of goods - Conditions imposed on the provisional release of the impugned seized goods - quantum of bond and the bank guarantee - HELD THAT - As per the settled position of law there is no absolute right to claim provisional release and the same is subject to conditions that may be imposed by the competent authority, though the conditions that may be imposed cannot be arbitrary and capricious. To safe guard the exercise of this power, the Board has issued the Circular. Perusal of the Circular, it is found that in case export goods are found to be mis-declared in terms of quantity, value and description, the first and foremost condition for grant of provisional release is execution of a bond which has to be of an amount equivalent to the value of the goods and along with that is the requirement of furnishing appropriate security so as to cover the redemption fine and penalty. The contents of the circular are simple, clear and there is no ambiguity in the terms and conditions prescribed therein and hence the same has to be complied. The authorities below has categorically recorded the findings on the basis of the test report that the description of the impugned goods to be exported have been mis-declared. The appellant has described the goods as Whey Flour Powder , however, they were found to be Maida . By virtue of the said mis-declaration, the appellant attempted to achieve the benefit of 10% of the FOB value as whey flour powder was covered under the MEIS whereas Maida was not covered under the said Scheme and therefore the appellant would not have been entitle to the benefit of the Scheme. Similarly, even in respect of valuation, the appellant has over valued the goods. Reliance placed by the appellant on Circular No. 17/2009 dated 25.5.2009 is misconceived as it specifically refers to norms for execution of bank guarantee under specified export promotion schemes, i. e. Advance License and EPCG Schemes, whereas the Circular dated 4.1.2011 specifically provides for conditions while ordering provisional release of export goods where they have been mis-declared. There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Provisional release of seized export goods. 2. Conditions imposed for provisional release, specifically the quantum of bond and bank guarantee. 3. Mis-declaration of goods and eligibility for MEIS benefit. 4. Applicability of CBEC Circulars and relevant legal provisions. Summary: Provisional Release of Seized Export Goods: The appellant challenged the Order-in-Appeal upholding the conditions for the provisional release of seized export goods classified as "Whey Flour (Powder)" under CTH 04041020, claiming MEIS benefits. The goods were seized after testing revealed them to be "Maida" (Wheat Flour), which did not qualify for MEIS benefits. Conditions Imposed for Provisional Release: The appellant contested the conditions for provisional release, specifically the requirement to submit a seizure bond equivalent to the declared FOB value (Rs.6,89,41,504/-) and a bank guarantee of Rs.70,00,000/-. The appellant argued that as a "Star Export House,' they were exempt from such guarantees per FTP 2014-2019 and Circular No.17/2009-CUS. Mis-declaration of Goods and Eligibility for MEIS Benefit: The Commissioner of Customs upheld the conditions, stating that the goods were mis-declared to avail MEIS benefits. The goods were found to be "Maida" instead of "Whey Flour Powder," making them ineligible for MEIS benefits. The Commissioner justified the bond and bank guarantee based on the probable redemption fine and penalties under Sections 114 (iii) and 114 (AA) of the Customs Act, 1962. Applicability of CBEC Circulars and Relevant Legal Provisions: The Tribunal referred to CBEC Circular No.01/2011-CUS, which mandates a bond equivalent to the value of goods and appropriate security for provisional release in cases of mis-declaration. The Tribunal also cited relevant case law, emphasizing that provisional release is not an absolute right and must comply with prescribed conditions to safeguard against potential penalties and fines. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the conditions imposed for the provisional release of the seized goods. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the requirement for a bond and bank guarantee as justified and in accordance with the law. [Order pronounced on 05.12.2023]
|
