9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the investigations, proceedings were initiated against the appellants for mis-declaration in order to get higher DEPB credit. The allegation is that the appellants declared their products as "processed, preserved and frozen under Sl. No. 2 of Export product group of DEPB product code No. 66" even though their export products were clearly classifiable under Sl. No. 1 as "no preservatives as per Standard Input-Output Norms". The Adjudicating Authority confiscated the exported goods valued at Rs. 2,86,01,385/- under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also confirmed the demand for payment of an amount of Rs. 8,58,042/-. Penalties were imposed on the company and its directors. The appellants were aggrieved over the above order. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... food exporter has used only a meager percentage of chemicals/preservatives in the export product, keeping in mind the general practice followed by the sea-food industry and the fact that requirement of giving declaration about usage of chemicals/preservatives in the shipping bill has been withdrawn with effect from 1-4-2002 under DEPB Scheme it has been decided that in such cases the exporter shall be allowed to avail 4% DEPB benefit if he is otherwise eligible for such benefit. The appellant submits that the goods exported, have been purchased from fresh catch by fishermen, and contain chemicals and sodium chloride and preservatives at the time of harvesting the catch, as made clear in the reply to the demand notice. It is further submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court that the jurisdiction to decide on matters relating to DEPB credit would vest in the licensing authorities and not customs department and the latter can only act relating to verification of exports as per the circular 15/97-Cus. Further, in Economic Traders (Guj.) Ltd. v. UOI and Ors. - 2006 (130) ECR 418 (Guj.) it was held by the Gujarat High Court that in matters of DEPB scheme, verification of customs was restricted to description and quantity of export product in the shipping bills and once the licensing authorities held that export was covered under the scheme and issued DEPB licence, it was not open to customs authorities to take the stand that the export product was not covered under the scheme. The appellant submits that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -declaration. It was also held that the Customs can initiate action only in case DGFT modifies the credit due to malpractice of the exporter. Several other cases on the above lines had been decided by this Bench. The views of the Tribunal have the support of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Economic Traders v. UOI & others, which is cited supra. The CBEC Circular dated 3-6-1997 as also the Circular No. 45/2003 dated 4-6-2003 indicate that the role of the Customs authorities is limited and is confined to the verification of exporters' declaration regarding description, quantity and FOB value of the export product and it would be for the licensing authorities granting credit, to ensure that credit is permitted by them at the cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
