9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (2) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 8 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs respectively and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on appellant No. 1 and a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on appellant No. 2 under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. We have heard Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Counsel who mainly contends that even though the claim for drawback may not be admissible to the appellants, still the goods should be permitted to be re-exported as they were found to be in accordance with the contract entered into between the appellants herein and their buyers in Moscow and the penalties should be set aside. Subsequently, the learned Counsel clarifies under instructions, that the goods are not fit for export as they have deteriorated due to their lying in the docks for a lon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents also had faint smears/smudges or slight manufacturing defects like missing button , seams unsewn etc. many of the garments bore labels showing their country of origin e.g. `Made in Nepal', `Made in Bangladesh', `Made in Japan'. From the above examination, it appeared that the description and value of the goods did not correspond in material particulars with the declaration made in the shipping bills in which the customers had declared (a) that the quality and specifications of the goods are in accordance with the terms of the export contract entered into with the buyer and (b) that the present market value of the goods is Rs. 39,27,800/- for shipping bill No. 9654 and Rs. 20,57,592/- for shipping bill No.9655. 5. The goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub-standard and used garments. The denial is in terms of Clause (1) of the second proviso to Rule 3 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 which stipulates that no drawback shall be allowed if goods (except tea chests used as packing material for export of blended tea) have been taken into use after manufacture. The argument of the learned Counsel that since the goods were certified by the buyer in accordance with the contract, export of the goods is to be allowed, is not acceptable - Clause (2) of the contract dated 23rd August, 1995 entered into between the appellants herein and the buyer in Moscow prescribes `quality of the goods delivered under present contract to confirmed to the Export Quality Standard and certi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otal quantity, total value and Expiry date and there does not appear to be any certificate from any officer of the AEPC certifying that the goods confirm to Export Quality standard. Hence this plea of the appellants cannot be considered at this late stage. We therefore, agree with the Adjudicating authority that the appellants are neither entitled to any drawback nor to export the goods covered by the two shipping bills in question. 8. Regarding confiscation of the goods, since the examination report clearly shows that the goods were substandard and used garments (second hand garments), they have been rightly held not to correspond in any material particulars with the entry made under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 as the goods h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
