TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any fulfillment of export obligation, the appellant liable to discharge the duty liability on the inputs which forgone by the Revenue along with their interest thereof - confiscation of the imported goods - quantity of imported goods have been used for manufacturing of the goods which are exported - confiscation is set aside - C/955/2005 - C/145/2010(PB) - Dated:- 30-9-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, M. Veeraiyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, Advocate, for the Appellant. S/Shri Sumit Kumar and I. Beg, SDRs, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original dated15-9-2005. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants resisted the show cause notice by claiming that the shipping bill which was produced second time was a correct shipping bill and relied upon the entries in the Bill of Lading. The Adjudicating Authority did not accept the contention raised by the appellants and held that the appellant had tried to forge shipping bill and denied the export benefit to the appellants. The Adjudicating Authority also confirmed the customs duty forgone by the Revenue and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh and also demanded interest on the amount of duty foregone by the authorities. The Adjudicating Authority also ordered for confiscation of goods imported against the DEEC licence as the goods were not available for confiscation, imposed redemption fine of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants submitted the facts to the authorities. He would draw our attention to the EODC granted by the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade and indicate that the export obligation discharge certificate has already been given to thern. 4. Learned DRon the contrary would submit that the shipping bills which were submitted for fulfillment of export obligation in the DGFT office were forged. It is his submission that as per the procedure when the goods reach the customs area, they are recorded in various registers; note register, processing register, register for goods arrival and register for export. It is his submission that the original copy of the shipping bill indicate the net weight of 7,000 kgs and gross weight 75 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the export obligation undertaken by them when applied for DEEC licence. 7. We find that the appellant s claim is that the export promotion copy of Shipping Bill No. 556 dated30th June 2001is the correct shipping bill while Revenue s claim is that the said shipping bill has been manipulated indicate that they have fulfilled the export obligation. On perusal of the records, we find that the export promotion copy of the Shipping Bill No. 556 dated 30th June 2001 indicates FOB value as Rs. 30,55,104/- against the quantity of 37,000 Kgs. of exports Ld. Counsel tries to justify the entries in the shipping bill referring to the bill of lading issued by M/s. Concor. In our considered view, this submission of ld. Counsel does not hold any water. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal copy of the Shipping Bill No. 556 dated30th June 2001as presented by the ld. SDR and relied upon by the adjudicating authority. We are of the considered view, that as existence of the original copy of the shipping bill is not denied by the appellant, then it would indicate that the appellant had not fulfilled the export obligation undertaken by them when they imported the goods against DEEC licence. In the absence of any fulfillment of export obligation, the appellant is liable to discharge the duty liability on the inputs which is forgone by the Revenue along with their interest thereof. We also find that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is commensurate with the violation of the law by the appellant. 8. As regards th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|