2024 (10) TMI 988 - AT - Customs

Export of frozen Sheep Meat in contravention to the ITC(HS) - Prohibited goods or not - recovery of duty drawback with interest and penalty - HELD THAT - It is settled principle that certificates issued in any proceedings would be valid until the same is declared to be void by the Competent Authority in this regard. Customs officers are not designated authority to determine and give a finding that the certificate is fraudulent, this is exactly what the Commissioner observed in the impugned order. There are no merits in this appeal as not even a single instance have brought on record whereby the exported goods were returned back from the designated country importing that for the reason that it was sub-standard or not upto the mark. There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the export of frozen sheep meat and its compliance with the ITC(HS) and Customs Act.
2. Recovery of drawback amount and applicable interest.
3. Imposition of penalties on the exporting company and its officials.
4. Validity of Veterinary Health Certificates (VHC) issued for the exported goods.
5. Jurisdiction of customs authorities in questioning certificates issued by designated authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Export of Frozen Sheep Meat:

The primary issue was whether the export of frozen sheep meat by the company was in contravention of the ITC(HS) and the Customs Act. The Commissioner held that the exports were made in violation of these regulations, rendering the goods liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, since the goods were not available for confiscation, no fine was proposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Recovery of Drawback Amount and Applicable Interest:

The Commissioner confirmed the demand for recovery of a drawback amounting to Rs.24,96,862/- along with applicable interest, under the provisions of Rules 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. This was related to the exports made from the Sahibabad plant.

3. Imposition of Penalties:

Penalties were imposed on the company and its officials under Sections 114(1) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The company was fined Rs.1,00,00,000/-, while the Managing Director and General Manager were fined Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.40,00,000/- respectively.

4. Validity of Veterinary Health Certificates (VHC):

The Tribunal examined the validity of the Veterinary Health Certificates issued for the exported meat. It was found that the certificates were issued by duly notified Veterinary Doctors authorized to do so. The Commissioner's findings indicated that the VHCs from the Derabassi Plant were issued by the designated authority of the State Government, fulfilling the ITC(HS) conditions. The Tribunal concluded that procedural violations, if any, did not equate to a contravention of the ITC(HS) provisions.

5. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities:

The Tribunal emphasized that customs officers are not the designated authority to determine the validity of certificates issued by other competent authorities. It referenced several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court judgments in Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs and Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, to assert that certificates remain valid unless declared void by the competent authority. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner rightly refrained from questioning the validity of the Veterinary Health Certificates.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, noting the absence of evidence that the exported goods were returned due to quality issues. The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objection was also disposed of. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that customs authorities cannot challenge certificates issued by designated authorities unless proven fraudulent by the competent authority.

← Previous Next →