2004 (8) TMI 249 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) regarding the denial of DEPB benefit.
2. Verification of export goods embossing with required legends.
3. Customs authorities denying DEPB benefit without proper verification.
4. Benefit of doubt to be given to the exporter in case of discrepancies in export documentation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant exported sleeves under DEPB scheme claiming credit under a specific product group. The exporter mentioned the brand name in the Shipping Bills but did not indicate if the product was embossed with required legends. The goods were allowed to be exported without proper verification of embossing. The Assistant Commissioner later denied the DEPB benefit due to lack of embossing verification.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that denying the benefit based on lack of examination from a specific viewpoint was incorrect. The Commissioner stated that the benefit of doubt should favor the exporter, especially when the shipping bills mention the brand name of the export goods. The department appealed this decision, arguing that the exporter should have informed Customs about the requirement of embossing as per the Exim Policy.

3. During the hearing, it was questioned whether Customs authorities could unilaterally deny the benefit granted by DGFT through DEPB scrip. The judge highlighted the importance of Customs making remarks while verifying the scrip and forwarding any concerns to the issuing authority for necessary actions. The judge expressed doubt over nullifying the DEPB scrip without consulting the issuing authority.

4. The judge agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that post-export doubts regarding embossing should not be used to deny a benefit approved by a competent authority. Emphasizing that no purpose would be served by retroactively questioning the embossing of goods after they have left the country, the judge upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to give the benefit of doubt to the exporter. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was rejected, affirming the decision in favor of the exporter.