Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2008 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 378 - AT - CustomsFraudulent Drawback and DEPB claims - Assessee mis-declaring the goods being exported in the name of various companies owned/controlled by him, the officers of DRI, detained and examined export containers declared to contain ‘Gear cutting tools made of high speed steel’, ‘heat resistant rubber tension tape’ and ‘Track wheel’. These containers had already been cleared by the Customs officers and were on way for shipment - goods actually exported were different from the goods from which the samples had been drawn and this indicated collusion between the Exporter and the Customs officers - SCN issued to the exporters for confiscation of the seized goods, disallowing the drawback & DEPB benefit and imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act - records were maintained to justify export by making false entries in the Central Excise records like RG-1 register - Raw material purchased from certain firms which, were found to be non-existent - consignees were non-existent and fictitious - Held that:- goods, in question, had been grossly misdeclared in terms description, quality and value with intention to claim drawback and since their actual value was much less than the amount of drawback claimed, no drawback was admissible and the penalty has been rightly imposed. Confiscation of goods exported - Commissioner in the impugned order has observed that since the goods have already been exported, the same are not liable for confiscation and accordingly he has not imposed any redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of Customs Act. - Appeal by revenue - Authorization by committee of chief commissioners - held that:- It is only in the Finance Act, 2008 that a specific provision was made for reference to the Board in case of disagreement between the two Chief Commissioner’s of the Committee of Chief Commissioners, on the question of legality and proprietary of the Commissioner’s order, but this provision cannot be given retrospective effect. In view of this, the three appeals of the Revenue have to be dismissed, as the same are not backed by a valid review authorisation.
|