TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty is reduced to Rs.2,00,000/-. Appeal allowed in part. - Customs Appeal No. 52296 of 2021-SM - FINAL ORDER No. 51109/2022 - Dated:- 29-11-2022 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sh. Bipin Garg Ms. J. Kainaat, Advocates for the appellant Sh. Ishwar Charan, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER The appellant, M/s Euro International is a manufacturer and exporter of readymade garments falling under Chapter 61 and 62 of Customs Tariff Act. 2. The appellant is in appeal against confirmation of penalty under Section 114(3) and 114AA of the Act, though Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to reduce the quantum. 3. Brief facts of the case are Revenue initiated enquiry against various exporters including this appellant who is IEC holder and located at New Delhi. It appeared to Revenue that this appellant have illegally diverted their export consignments cleared through ICD, Tughlakabad to destination other than the destination declared in the shipping bill, in order to avail undue benefit of Focus Market Scheme (FMS), Special Focus Market Scheme (SFMS), Market Linked Focus Production Scheme (MLFPS) and Merchandise Export from India Sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as found written by hand against port of dispatch, and Dubai was written manually against country of destination. These manual amendments appear to be endorsed by purported signature and rubber stamp and signature of Superintendent of Customs, Export Shed, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. 6. Similarly, IAL Logistics India vide letter dated 16.09.2015 submitted copy of master bill of lading dated 26.02.2015 for transportation of container of export goods for appellant under shipping bill Nos. 7758509 and 7758523, both dated 11.02.2015 and shipping bill No. 7764275 dated 12.02.2015. These containers were also found dispatched to Jebel Ali Dubai from the copy of TR-1, TR-2 submitted by M/s IAL Logistics, it was observed that these were filed by the appellant and there were similar manual amendments. Originally port of despatch was mentioned as Awassa and country of destination was mentioned as Ethiopia in the shipping bill, which was stricken out manually and changed to Jebel Ali Port, Dubai under the purported endorsement by the Customs with rubber stamp. 7. Revenue made a comprehensive reference to the Additional DGFT, New Delhi by letter dated 05.09.2016. From reply dated 14.09.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no restriction or bar on availing drawback in respect of the goods exported to UAE (Dubai). The appellant have rightly claimed the benefit of duty drawback in terms of Section 75 of the Customs Act (as applicable in manufactured goods) read with the Drawback Rules. It was further urged that the physical export of goods is not disputed by Revenue. Admittedly, the export proceeds have also been received in convertible foreign exchange with respect to the twenty shipping bills in question. The shipping bills alongwith other related documents were filed as per law. The LET export order was given after all the requisite processing and examination of the goods by the officers. The appellant got the port of export and country of destination changed at the last minute through the freight forwarder agent, as per instruction received from the buyer. Further, there is no bar for export of readymade garments to UAE for availment of duty drawback. The drawback can be rejected only in terms of the provisions of the Act read with the Rules particularly Section 76. Section 76 provides that no drawback shall be allowed in respect of any goods the market price of which is less than the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces in the manufacture of such goods. Further, Rule 2(c) of the Drawback Rules stipulates that export with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means taking out of India to a place outside India or taking out from a place in DTA to a SEZ and includes loading of provisions/ store or equipment for use on board a vessel or aircraft proceeding to a foreign port. Further, Rule 3 stipulates that drawback may be allowed on the export of goods at such amount or at such rate as may be determined by the Central Government. Further, Rule 16A of the Rules stipulates for recovery of amount of drawback where the export proceeds are not realised within the prescribed limit or any extended period. The Ld. Commissioner concluded that under the Drawback Rules, the only condition for availing drawback is that the goods should have been exported out of India to a place outside India and further the export proceeds should have been realised within the prescribed period. He further held that admittedly goods have been exported by diverting the destination to UAE, which is a place outside India. Further, there is no allegation that export proceeds have not been received. Thus, the drawback ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
