2014 (6) TMI 267 - HC - Customs

Duty demand - Mis declaration of export goods - claim of fraudulent duty drawback - Held that - there was a misdeclaration of both quality and quantity of goods. There is in fact an admission on the part of the appellant that the goods which were presented for export were not as per declaration made in the Shipping Bill. Thus denial of duty drawback can hardly be faulted. Learned counsel for the appellant also sought to canvass before us that certain grounds raised were not dealt with by the Tribunal. If it was so, it was the duty of the appellant to have gone back to the Tribunal to invite a finding on the grounds which were urged according to it though not considered. The fact that the appellant failed to do so makes it clear that the findings were in fact given by the Tribunal in respect of the grounds urged. We may also note that the impugned order contains pure findings of fact. There is no question of law involved - Decided against assessee. Condonation of delay - Held that - the petitioner is not an uneducated person, a pardanasheen lady or a person hailing from a socially or economically weaker section of the society. The petitioner is a limited company seeking to claim duty drawback in respect of exports which has been denied to the petitioner on account of misdeclaration both in respect of quality and quantity of goods. - here is no ground whatsoever for condonation of delay of this inordinately long period of time. - though delay is not condonable, tribunal choose to hear the case on merit - on merit case decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in reactivating the appeal.
2. Justification for the inordinate delay in taking steps to revive the appeal.
3. Use of RTI Act to seek information in the case.
4. Claim for duty drawback on exports denied due to misdeclaration.
5. Failure to prove misdeclaration of goods for duty drawback.
6. Imposition of exemplary cost due to appellant's conduct.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant withdrew the appeal in 2004 with liberty to file proceedings before the appropriate forum. The appeal was directed to be dealt with on merits in 2007. However, the appellant failed to take steps to reactivate the appeal, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution in 2008. Subsequent applications for condonation of delay were filed, but lacked material particulars and were dismissed for non-prosecution in 2010. The appellant was granted opportunities to file affidavits but failed to do so within the stipulated time, resulting in the dismissal of applications.

Inordinate Delay Justification:
The appellant's application for condonation of delay was found lacking in material particulars. The appellant resorted to filing RTI applications to obtain case information instead of following proper procedures. The court noted the appellant's tactics to gain time and the absence of justification for the significant delay of almost three years in reviving the appeal. Despite being granted opportunities, the appellant failed to provide appropriate particulars to support the delay.

Use of RTI Act:
The appellant's use of the RTI Act to seek information in the case was criticized by the court. The court found it unnecessary and burdensome to the registry, as the appellant could have inspected records to obtain required information. The court disapproved of the appellant's attempt to extend the period of reasonable time by resorting to RTI applications instead of following standard procedures.

Duty Drawback Claim:
The appellant, a limited company, sought duty drawback on exports, which was denied due to misdeclaration of goods' quality and quantity. The court noted the appellant's admission that the goods presented for export did not match the declaration in the Shipping Bill, leading to the denial of duty drawback. The appellant failed to provide evidence to support the claim that 25 cartons were wrongly sent, shifting the onus to prove the misdeclaration.

Failure to Prove Misdeclaration:
The court highlighted the lack of evidence from the appellant to prove the misdeclaration of goods for duty drawback. The appellant's plea regarding the misdeclaration was not substantiated with factual evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The court emphasized the appellant's responsibility for accurate declarations in the Shipping Bill when claiming duty drawback.

Exemplary Cost Imposition:
Due to the appellant's conduct and failure to justify the delay or prove misdeclaration, the court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant. The court deemed it appropriate to penalize the appellant for the conduct displayed throughout the appeal process.