9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order was whether the respondent had discharged his export obligation under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. The respondent had imported stainless steel billets/ingots and rolls duty free under the DEEC scheme (License No. 2051168, dated 7-6-93). He produced proof of export of 850 MTs of alloy steel bar Sections during January 1994 to Dubai in fulfilment of the export obligation before the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and that authority cancelled the bond upon being satisfied that export obligation had been fulfilled. The particulars of the Shipping Bills were as under :- S. Bill No. Date Item Quantity (in MT) Value (in USS) 194 1-1-94 Alloy Steel Bar Sections 200 90000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that no clear finding has been recorded on this point in the impugned order. It is also mentioned that the appellant s version that he had paid a conversion charge of Rs. 5.92 lakhs in cash to Mr. Harish Taneja was on verification by the investigation authority found to be not reliable inasmuch as Shri Taneja was not traceable. The appeal submits that M/s. Sinclair Exports Ltd. have completely failed in this case to prove that they have not disposed of the imported material before fulfilment of export obligation but utilized in the manufacture of goods exported by them. 5. The present appeal also repeats the allegation that the quantities mentioned in the shipping bills had not actually been exported. The submissions in the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d reasonable evidences to question the declaration. The adjudicating authority ought to have considered and passed the order on the evidence adduced by the department to question the genuineness of the export, rather than presuming the exporter s bona fide merely on the basis of the fact that goods were allowed to be exported by the department and also cleared by the importer on the other end. No finding on the merit of Department s case has been given in a categorical manner. 6. During the hearing of the case, learned SDR pointed out that in terms of Clause (iv) of Notification No. 203/92-Cus., an importer cannot dispose of or in any other manner deal with goods imported under DEEC Scheme until export obligation is met and export procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have therefore, submitted that the Revenues Appeal has no merit in law or on facts and is required to be dismissed. 8. In view of the various contentions on facts raised before us, we obtained the cashbook of the respondent and the investigation file of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and perused them. 9. The appeal is on two grounds. One that the appellant disposed of the goods before the export obligation was fulfilled and export earnings repatriated. On this point records of the case show that the imported goods were cleared from the customs around 18th January, 1994. Three of the export shipping bills dated 1-1-94, 14-1-94 and 15-1-94 were prior to the release of the imported goods itself. Thus, these exports have taken p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants claim was found to be correct. The persistence of the Revenue with the allegation of non-export is quite intriguing on the face of confirmation of export by the Indian Embassy. It is also quite surprising that such an allegation should be made on entirely general grounds like customs authorities do not examine 100% of the goods, the clearance is allowed basically on the basis of the declaration made on export documents, only very small percentage of goods is examined and it is possible to certify the accuracy of party s declaration only after 100% examination. Customs administrations all over the world go by extremely limited physical examination of imported and exported goods. Obviously, a case cannot be built on the limitations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
