9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any particulars with the entry made under this Act then also goods liable for confiscation. The entries made on the shipping bill in respect of the details of import under Rule 4 referred above are definitely made under this Act, any misdeclaration of the same will attract Section 113(i) - In the present case the appellants have entered the goods with the Sr No chiseled on them. Prima facie appellants have tried to manipulate the goods so as to tally them with the goods imported. When the goods were found not to be in accordance with the goods imported by them against the B/E s referred they took recourse to other evidences and claimed that on the basis of computer records and other evidences they can establish the identity of the goods. However reading of rule 4 will make it evident if there any difficulty being faced by the Appellants in establishing identity the then appellants should have approached Commissioner and sought his intervention by establishing the identity with other records. Having not done so, they manipulated the marking and numbers on the good to establish the identity with the imported goods - such an approach is nothing but an act of mis-declaration which ren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds imported against the B/E as claimed by the appellants. Thereafter investigations conducted by the revenue in respect of the said goods revealed that items presented for export could not be tallied with the items imported by the said Bill of Entries. 2.3 Statements of the concerned persons were recorded and the valuation of the said goods presented for exportation was got done by Chartered Engineers M/s Bureau Veritas. 2.4 By doing so department was of the view that appellants had attempted to claim ineligible drawback to tune of ₹ 49,25,641.60/-. Accordingly the goods presented for export were seized as they were liable for confiscation under section 113(i) of Customs Act, 1962. 2.5 A show cause notice dated 31.12.2009, calling them to show cause as to why i. the goods presented for export vide the two shipping bills be not confiscated under section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962; ii. ineligible drawback of ₹ 30,80,589/- and ₹ 18,45,052/- sought to be availed vide SB No 300001023 dated 30.05.2009 and 300001024 dated 30.05.2009 respectively under section 74 should not be denied as the identity of goods cannot be established; iii. penalty shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submitted that the goods were not merely entered for exportation but were entered for export under claim of drawback under Section 74. Since the goods have been entered for exportation under claim of drawback under section 74, any mis-declaration in respect of claim for such drawback shall be covered by the provisions of Section 113(i) and the goods are liable for confiscation. Once the goods are mis-declared in any respect with intention to claim drawback, not otherwise admissible the charge of mis-declaration as envisaged under Section 113(i) is established and goods become liable for confiscation. Since the goods are liable for confiscation the penalty imposed under Section 114 is also justified. 5.1 We have considered the submissions made in appeal, and during the course of argument. 5.2 In the present case appellants have filed Shipping Bills as detailed in table 1, under claim of drawback under Section 74 of Custom Act 1962. Table 1: Details of S/B filed claiming drawback under Section 74 of Custom Act Shipping Bill Bill of Entry Drawback Rs Description Numb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission from Reserve Bank of India to re-export the goods, wherever necessary. 5.4 In terms of the above rule 4 appellant were required to make declaration on the Shipping Bill not only in respect of goods entered for exportation and their value but also in respect of the drawback being claimed by them in terms of Section 74. Any misdeclaration in respect of the drawback claimed shall be construed as a mis-declaration. Section 113 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows: (i) any goods entered for exportation which do not correspond in respect of value or in any material particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of Baggage with the declaration made under Section 77; 5.5 Section 113(i), is not restricted to mis-declaration in respect of value or description of goods entered for exportation, but if the mis-declaration is an respect of any particulars with the entry made under this Act then also goods liable for confiscation. The entries made on the shipping bill in respect of the details of import under Rule 4 referred above are definitely made under this Act, any misdeclaration of the same will attract Section 113(i). 5.6 In the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at imported under the said BE and import documents to substantiate his claim that the goods entered for export under the above said SBs are the same and fraudulently attempted to claim ineligible drawback. The exporter has thus forged the markings especially serial numbers on the impugned goods so as to corelate them with the marks and nos. declared in the relevant BEs and SBs with sole intention to avail ineligible drawback under section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the declarations made in the SBs are in contravention to the provisions of section 50(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.15. From the foregoing, I find that the impugned seized goods, which were entered for export under the said two SBs have been grossly misdeclared in material particulars, i.e. the description including serial numbers and were misstated for the sole purpose of claiming ineligible drawback under section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. This position emerges from the fact that the serial numbers of the impugned goods were found to be manually chiseled/embossed evidencing a forged identity of the goods. On this count, I find that the impugned goods entered for exportation do not correspond in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
