9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of drawback claims for 29 shipments of Children's garments. 2. Disallowance of drawback claims for 9 shipments of ladies' garments. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Drawback Claims for 29 Shipments of Children's Garments: M/s. Texcomash Export filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 56/2000, dated 28-11-2003, which disallowed their drawback claims and imposed a penalty under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act. The appellants argued that their export shipments of Children's garments had their FOB value fixed at Rs. 242/- per set by the Government of India in Order No. 406/99, dated 26-3-1999, which should be upheld. They contended that the principle of stare decisis and res judicata applied, as the Government had already settled the FOB value, and no new allegations of fraud or manipulation had been proven. The Revenue countered, stating that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply because the current proceedings involved new allegations of fraud and forgery, which were not considered in the earlier proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Government of India had previously fixed the FOB value at Rs. 242/- per set after conducting market enquiries and considering transportation and other expenses. This decision had attained finality as the Revenue did not challenge it in a higher forum. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue could not reopen the issue without challenging the previous order in an appropriate forum, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Hope Plantation Ltd. and other relevant case laws. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order concerning the 29 shipments of Children's garments, upholding the previously determined FOB value. 2. Disallowance of Drawback Claims for 9 Shipments of Ladies' Garments: The appellants argued that the drawback claims for 9 consignments of ladies' garments were denied on the grounds that the shipments reached Dubai instead of Russia. They contended that the Drawback Rules did not mandate the destination to remain the same as in the Shipping Bills, and the drawback should be allowed as long as the inward remittances were received after the goods left the Indian port. The Department did not dispute the shipment of goods to a foreign port but argued that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply due to new allegations of fraud. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order did not provide separate findings for these consignments. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority for re-adjudication, instructing them to consider the appellants' submissions and provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with the Tribunal setting aside the impugned order concerning the 29 shipments of Children's garments and remanding the issue of the 9 shipments of ladies' garments for re-adjudication by the jurisdictional Adjudicating Authority.
|
