9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allegation of misdeclaration in export products. 2. Levying penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 1: Allegation of Misdeclaration in Export Products: The case involved the appellants exporting men's leather shoe uppers, listing certain raw materials in the shipping bills which were not used in the export products. They were granted an advance license based on different components than those actually used. The jurisdictional authority alleged misdeclaration, leading to a show cause notice citing Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner denied DEEC benefits and imposed a penalty under Section 114(i) after hearing the importers. The appellants contested this decision, arguing that the goods exported were not prohibited or restricted, and the condition of using specific components was not part of the export requirement. The Commissioner's imposition of a penalty was deemed unjustified as the export activity was separate from obtaining the DEEC license, and the penalty provision was not applicable in this scenario. Issue 2: Levying Penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962: The key contention revolved around whether the penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Section 114(i) was valid. The provision allows for penalties concerning goods under prohibition, but the Commissioner's decision was based on the non-fulfillment of conditions related to the DEEC benefits claimed. However, it was clarified that at the time of export, there was no explicit requirement to include the components for which benefits were claimed in the export products. The Commissioner's belief that the application made before the DGFT became a condition at the time of export was deemed legally unfounded. The Customs authorities were advised on the appropriate course of action, which should have involved noting the non-inclusion of certain products in the exported items and addressing any duty implications upon future imports. The appeal succeeded, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and the full remittance of the penalty, with a directive for Customs to take action if unclaimed components were noticed in future imports. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the misdeclaration issue in export products and the incorrect application of penalty provisions, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal complexities involved in the case.
|
