9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and defects in the nature of a) absence of dyeing b) colour not distinctly different from that of crust c) thickness more than 1mm d) absence of protective coat e) absence snuffing / shaving on the grain. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (AIR PORT) , CHENNAI VERSUS AVANTHI LEATHERS LTD. [ 2009 (7) TMI 1130 - CESTAT CHENNAI ], the issue was similar whether the department held the goods to be unfinished leather for the reason of absence of protective coating. The goods were provisionally released. The exporter reprocessed the goods and exported the same. It was held that the confiscation and imposition of penalties are not warranted. After taking note of the fact that the goods have been provisionally released, re-processed and exported, it is opined that the confiscation of the goods is not warranted and justified. Accordingly, the redemption fine imposed is also to be set aside. The department has not been able to show any mens rea on the part of the appellant. Appellants herein have taken release of the goods reprocessed the same and exported. The appellants have already incurred considerable financial loss on taking back the goods reprocessing and exporting goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as finished leather, the goods are liable for confiscation. As goods were already provisionally released and re-exported after reprocessing, the adjudicating authority imposed redemption fine and penalties. The proceedings were dropped in regard to Arman Leather Exports. Aggrieved the appellants are now before the Tribunal. The details of fine and penalty imposed are as under: Sl. No. Appellant Name Appeal No. Redemption Fine Imposed (Rs.) Penalty Imposed 1. M/s. Futan Leather C/42369/2013 7,40,000 4,60,000/- 2. M. Sarath C/42370/2013 ------ 25,000/- 3. Kalki Shipping Associates C/42371/2013 ------ 1,00,000/- 4. ALM Leather Exports C/42373/2013 4,00,000/- 2,50,000/- 3. The Ld. counsel Ms. V. Pramila appeared and argued on behalf of the appellants. The charge o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... snuffing/shaving was absent, the Tribunal held that these were minor variations. It was observed that the appellant having incurred considerable financial loss on account of taking the goods back for reprocessing and the delay in carrying out their exports and realization of export value, the Tribunal set aside the redemption fine and penalties imposed by department. The decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Air port, Chennai) Vs Avanti Leathers Ltd. 2010 (261) ELT 491 (Tribunal, Chennai) was also relied. 8. On behalf of the appellant M/s. Kalki Shipping Associates (CHA) and Shri M. Sarath the Ld. counsel submitted that there was no deliberate intention to substitute the goods or attempt to export unfinished leather as finished leather. The department alleges that the appellants tried to substitute and export the unfinished leather consignment with another consignment of finished leather for which shipping bill was filed by the same CHA. The Ld. counsel submitted that Shri Anand who was the then In-charge of CHA firm is alleged by department to be master mind for substituting the consignments in the warehouse. Shri Anand is no more and the appeal filed by Shri Anand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir cargo complex. On 30 March 2012 Anand informed him about the wrong unloading 64 bundles of M/s. Elite Leathers instead of 63 bundles of the exporters, namely M/s. Futan Leathers, M/s. Arman Leather Exports and M/s.ALM Leather Exports. He immediately instructed Mr. Anand to sort out the matter with Air Customs. It has been argued by the Ld. counsel that there was some mistake as the consignment of M/s. Elite Leathers contained 64 bundles whereas the consignment of these appellants contained 63 bundles. The Ld. counsel argued that it was only mixing up of bundles by mistake and there was no deliberate intention to export unfinished leather in the guise of finished leather. 13. It has to be noted that the goods were provisionally released, reprocessed and exported. Thus the goods are not available for confiscation at the time of passing the order by the adjudicating authority. In a similar situation, when the goods were exported after re-processing, in the case of Vijayalakshmi Leathers Vs. CC, Chennai 2000 (119) ELT 656 (Tribunal) it was held that the imposition of redemption fine and penalties are required to be set aside. The facts of the said case revealed that the samples d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ders with regard to grades. There was no effort to export prohibited goods. The Appellants have already incurred considerable financial loss on account of taking the goods back for reprocessing and the delay in carrying out their exports and realization of he export value. Taking all these facts and circumstances into account, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the Appellants and the impugned orders are set aside. 14. In the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Airport Chennai Vs. Avanti Leathers Ltd. 2010 (261) ELT 491 Tribunal, Chennai, the issue was similar whether the department held the goods to be unfinished leather for the reason of absence of protective coating. The goods were provisionally released. The exporter reprocessed the goods and exported the same. It was held that the confiscation and imposition of penalties are not warranted. Relevant paragraph reads as under [Order per: Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President]. Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate authority who has set aside confiscation of goods Buff upper finished leather and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. 2. We have heard both sides. The Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
