9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Export of Leather, Compliance with specifications, Confiscation of goods, Penalties under Section 114.
Comprehensive details of the judgment: Export of Leather: The Appellants filed shipping bills for export, declaring the goods as finished leather. Central Leather Research Institute (C.L.R.I.) identified deficiencies in the processing, such as absence of dyeing, color discrepancies, and thickness issues. Export Trade Control Public Notice outlined required processes for finished leather. Despite deficiencies, goods were processed as per buyer specifications, meeting contractual requirements. Appellants argued that variations were normal in manufacturing and did not warrant confiscation. Compliance with specifications: Appellants contended that goods were produced in accordance with buyer specifications, seeking to rectify identified deficiencies for re-export. They maintained that minor variations did not render the goods as non-compliant with finished leather standards. The dispute arose from differing standards between C.L.R.I. and buyers, not from an intent to export prohibited goods. Confiscation of goods: The Department of Revenue argued that C.L.R.I.'s opinion on finished leather standards justified confiscation. They highlighted the importance of meeting specified processes for export eligibility. However, the Appellate Tribunal found that the goods met most criteria and variations were due to differing standards, not deliberate non-compliance. Penalties under Section 114: Appellants challenged the imposition of penalties, asserting that they had not committed any acts warranting confiscation. They incurred financial losses in rectifying deficiencies and reprocessing goods for export. The Tribunal considered these circumstances and allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders in favor of the Appellants.
|
