2008 (3) TMI 98 - AT - Customs

Failure of assessee to comply with the promise to export goods from the declared area as per the declaration filed by them before the Commissionerate - whether without presence of any contrary material, the procedural irregularity shall be a bottleneck to rendering substantial justice - nothing in record to show that the export was questionable mere because of the procedural irregularity, the Appellant should not be deprived of appropriate benefit admissible under law but penalty is justified

Summary

Issues:
1. Procedural irregularity in exporting goods from a port other than the designated jurisdiction.
2. Whether procedural irregularity should prevent rendering substantial justice.
3. Imposition of penalty due to procedural irregularity.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Procedural irregularity in exporting goods
The Appellant argued that the Authorities below erred in denying relief despite no questionable export or contrary material, solely based on the place of export being different. The Appellant had been granted relief previously by the Maritime Commissioner of Kolkata-III jurisdiction. The procedural irregularity of not exporting through the declared area led to the impugned order, according to the JDR. This irregularity hindered proper control by the Kolkata III Commissionerate over the Appellant.

Issue 2: Rendering substantial justice despite procedural irregularity
The Tribunal considered whether procedural irregularity should impede substantial justice. Despite no evidence of questionable export, the impugned order was issued due to the failure to comply with the promise made regarding the export location. While Revenue argued that the irregularity prevented proper control, there was no clear revenue implication apart from control. The Tribunal held that the Appellant should not be denied benefits under the law due to procedural irregularity, except for the imposition of a penalty, which was confirmed.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the impugned order except for the penalty, which the Appellant was directed to deposit. The decision highlighted that the Appellant should receive appropriate benefits under the law despite the procedural irregularity, emphasizing the importance of complying with export promises to avoid penalties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, except for confirming the penalty, emphasizing the significance of adhering to procedural requirements in export activities to ensure proper control and compliance with declarations.