1996 (5) TMI 258 - AT - Customs

Issues:
1. Appeal against orders passed by Collector of C. Excise (Appeals)
2. Failure to declare goods exported under DEEC scheme
3. Contention of technical or procedural failure
4. Verification and endorsement by Customs Officers in DEEC Book
5. Customs Officers' duty to ensure goods exported under advance licence
6. Certificate by Inspector of Central Excise not a substitute for Customs Officers' satisfaction
7. Procedural irregularity vs. substantial condition

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the orders passed by the Collector of C. Excise (Appeals) dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants against the orders passed by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector rejected the request for admission of the shipment under the DEEC scheme due to the unavailability of goods for verification and the absence of samples for testing, hindering the Department from ensuring the nature of the exported goods.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the failure to declare the goods exported under the export obligations and the lack of endorsement on the shipping bill were technical or procedural failures that could be condoned. She highlighted a certificate issued by the Inspector of Central Excise, certifying the verification of goods, to support the contention that the orders should be set aside to benefit the appellants.

3. The learned SDR reiterated the reasoning in the impugned order, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed procedures and policies regarding export obligations and verification by Customs Officers.

4. The Tribunal examined the submissions and noted that the appellants did not indicate in the AR form that the imported goods were for export obligations. The Customs Notification specified that the material for manufacturing and exporting resultant products should replenish the material already exported. Various provisions in the Export Policy outlined the verification and endorsement requirements by Customs Officers in the DEEC Book.

5. Customs Officers were unable to draw samples as there was no indication in the AR form that the goods were for export under the DEEC Scheme. The absence of necessary documentation and indications prevented Customs Officers from ensuring compliance with the obligations mentioned in the advance licence. The Tribunal emphasized that the certificate by the Inspector of Central Excise was not a substitute for Customs Officers' satisfaction during their duties under the Customs Act, as it lacked essential verification and endorsement.

6. The Tribunal concluded that the procedures and safeguards were not merely procedural but substantial conditions to prevent misuse of export policies. The absence of indications in the AR form and lack of verification by Customs Officers indicated a failure to comply with the necessary requirements, which could not be condoned as a procedural irregularity. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as there were no infirmities in the impugned order.

← Previous Next →