2018 (6) TMI 343 - AT - Customs

Export of readymade garments or not? - violation of N/N. 45/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 and section 11 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Confiscation - penalty u/s 114 of CA - Held that - Single Member Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/S NEELAM STEELS, SHRI R.P. HANDA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA 2016 (1) TMI 766 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that the goods in question were exported - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of non-export of readymade garments.
2. Violation of conditions of notifications and acts.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.
4. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana.
5. Dispute regarding fulfillment of export conditions.
6. Single Member Bench's findings on export of goods.
7. Sustainability of impugned Order-in-Original.

Analysis:

1. The case involved allegations that the appellant did not export 1.00 Lakh pieces of readymade garments to Nepal, leading to a show cause notice. The Commissioner held that due to the failure to produce proof of export, the goods were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed penalties.

2. The appellant was accused of violating conditions of Notification No.45/2001-CE(NT), Notification No.43/2002-CUS, and Notification No.47/2002-CUS, along with Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of goods and imposed a penalty under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana was questioned as parallel proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The Central Excise Commissioner contended that the goods were not exported, leading to recoverable Central Excise duty and Cenvat credit issues.

4. The Single Member Bench's findings highlighted that the appellant had fulfilled export requirements by presenting goods for export to Nepal, receiving payment, and providing necessary documents. The Revenue disputed the fulfillment of a specific condition, but the Bench ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the department's lapses could not fault the appellant.

5. The appellant argued that since the subject goods had been exported, the allegations in the show cause notice did not hold. The Final Order dated 26.10.2015 confirmed the export of goods, leading to the unsustainability of the impugned Order-in-Original.

6. After considering submissions, the Tribunal found that the goods in question were indeed exported, rendering the impugned Order-in-Original unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the order and allowed both appeals, entitling the appellants to consequential relief as per the law.