9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of secret information on 12-3-1985, the Customs Officers visited Lufthansa German Airlines Cargo Warehouse for examination of the above mentioned consignment comprising of 58 packages valued at Rs. 2,12,900/-. The goods were lying in Customs cleared cargo section but the Airlines on demand expressed their inability to produce export documents as the consigner appellant had not handed over the same, as confirmed by M/s. Lufthansa German Airlines by their letter dated 13-3-1985. The Customs officers examined the goods in the presence of two independent witnesses and found to contain cotton powerloom RMG. A panchnama was drawn and statements recorded. The appellant-consigner could not produce the document as they contended that it was lost while being brought to the Airport. The Department s office copy of the Shipping Bill was also found missing. A copy of the shipping bill was obtained for M/s. Apparal Export Promotion Council (AEPC) which showed that the goods had been declared as Cotton Powerloom Baby Cord Readymade Ladies blouses, skirts and dress as per invoice No. 43/285 dated 22-2-1985. The appellant-consigner, therefore, filed a fresh (a duplicate Shipping Bill No. 25789 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h customs when the consignment was checked, they reported the missing of the shipping bill and filed green shipping bill. This was done with a view to claim drawback which was not claimed earlier. On the basis of these facts, which were revealed in the investigation, the Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice dated 8-5-1985 under Section 113 of the Act for alleged contravention of Section 50 of the Customs Act read with Clause 3 of the Export (Control) Order, 1977 as amended issued under Section 3 of Import and Export Control Act, 1947 on the ground that the appellants had mis-declared the description of the goods as Cotton Powerloom Baby Cord Readymade Ladies blouses, shirts and dresses in the Shipping Bill No. 110001, dated 8-3-1985 whereas the subject goods were not found to be made of Baby Cord fabric. The show cause notice was also issued to M/s. Lufthansa German Airlines. The appellants in the meantime filed a case in C.M. 1154/85 before the Hon ble Delhi High Court and got the consignment under seizure released for export on 30-3-1985 by furnishing a guarantee. 6. The appellants by their reply dated 14-8-1985 contended that the words Baby Cord had crept in inad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant register in which it was found that the impugned shipping bill was entered as Sr. No. 11004 and not at Sr. No. 11001 as indicated in the show cause notice. The witness had confirmed that no mention was made in register of the goods being covered under DEEC Scheme. The witness could not produce the register in which the entries of DEEC shipments of the appellants were made. The appellants had found fault in the Customs officials not providing this register, as it was of vital importance to them inasmuch as the entries of export made by them under DEEC Scheme was made in that register and that register would have disclosed that the details of the impugned shipping bill were not entered in that register and thus it would have confirmed that the goods for export were not under DEEC Scheme. The appellants had produced, in the enquiry before the Additional Collector, seven shipping bills alongwith relevant documents which were covered under DEEC Scheme to stress the point that the impugned shipping bill was entirely different from DEEC Scheme shipping bill. The appellants had further submitted before the Collector that all the seven shipping bills under the DEEC Scheme bore Code N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erything was not well with the consignment . The Addl. Collector refused to believe the mis-description on shipping bill by words Baby cord as clerical, inadvertant or typographical error. He did not accept the arguments of the appellants that it was not possible for them to claim DEEC benefits although he has observed in his order that it is true that when the copies of the said seven shipping bills submitted by the exporter, are compared with the copy of the Shipping Bill relied upon by the Department, it is seen that various declarations/certificates required under DEEC scheme do not appear on the copy of the shipping bill No. 11001(11004), dated 8-3-1985 but I am unable to accept this argument as the copies of the shipping bills submitted by the exporter are Export Promotion copies on which exports are certified by Customs Department for various export benefits and certain detailed noting of Customs Department whereas the available copy of the Shipping Bill No. 11001(11004), dated 8-3-1985 is a copy obtained from AEPC which never have any endorsement by the Customs Department . As the appellants did not bring any independent evidence in support of the purported clerical mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in [1978 (2) E.L.T. 151]. 10. Smt. Dolly Sexana, learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the Addl. Collector and pointed out that the conduct of the appellants in reporting the missing of the shipping bill on the same day, when the consignment was checked, gave strong suspicion to disbelieve the version of the appellants and further the filing of wrong shipping bill and its immediate withdrawal with green shipping bill clearly indicated the party was trying to export the garments by mis-description to get the benefit under DEEC Scheme. Hence, learned S.D.R. justified the imposition of the penalty in the case. 11. We have heard the parties of both sides, carefully perused the records and the impugned order. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether there is any contravention of Section 50 of the Customs Act read with clause 3 of the Export (Control) Order, 77 as amended issued under Section 3 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 on the ground that the appellants had mis-declared the description of the goods and whether there was any clerical or inadvertant error on the part of the appellants in filling the shipping bills and whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
