2000 (11) TMI 870 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of plastic kidney dishes exported by the appellant under Section 113 of the Act.
2. Requirement of goods to be manufactured by the appellant or supporting manufacturer.
3. Overdeclaration of the value of goods contravening Sec. 18(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Confiscation of Goods:
The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confiscating plastic kidney dishes exported by the appellant, declaring their export value, and imposing a penalty. The Commissioner alleged that the goods were not manufactured by the appellant as required by law but by another person. The Commissioner cited the contravention of paragraph 71 of the Import Policy under the duty exemption scheme as the basis for confiscation.

Manufacturing Requirement:
The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's finding, emphasizing paragraph 109A of the policy. This paragraph mandated that the name and address of the supporting manufacturer be indicated in the application for the license, and the name should be endorsed on the DEEC book. The Tribunal clarified that the absence of the supporting manufacturer's name in the DEEC book did not automatically lead to confiscation, especially when the appellant was not interested in utilizing the license for import purposes.

Value Declaration Contravention:
The Commissioner also alleged that overdeclaring the value of the goods violated Sec. 18(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, rendering the export prohibited under Sec. 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal referred to a larger bench decision that clarified the correct interpretation of the law. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's declaration of goods' value did not contravene the law, as per the decision in J.G. Exports & Ors. v CC. Consequently, the goods were not liable for confiscation or penalty.

Judgment:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation order and penalty imposition. The decision was based on the finding that the goods were not liable for confiscation under the mentioned provisions. The appellant was granted consequential relief, emphasizing the correct application of the law and the absence of any violation warranting confiscation or penalty.