Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 423 - AT - CustomsDuty Drawback - Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1964 - the goods presented for re-export were found to be different from the goods imported against the B/E as claimed by the appellants - Held that:- On examination the said goods were found not to be tallying with the goods imported by the Appellants against B/E’s on which duty now claimed as drawback was paid. It was found that Sr No mentioned on the items was changed and fresh Sl No, chiseled on the said goods - in terms of Rule 4 of Re-Export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Custom Duties), Rule 1995, 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), 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) - 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 render the goods liable for confiscation. Since the goods have been rendered liable for confiscation under Section 113 (i) the penalty under Section 114 will follow - however, quantum of redemption fine and penalty is reduced. Appeal allowed in part.
|