Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Select Leather Craft vs Chennai(Air Port &Amp; Cargo) on 1 November, 2019
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. III
Customs Appeal No.40132 of 2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.No.1296/2012 dt. 30.10.2012 passed by
Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]
M/s.Select Leather Craft Appellant
Plot No.27,SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Vellore District,
Ranipet 532 403.
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs (Air),
New Customs House,
Airport & Air Cargo Meenambakkam
Chennai 600 027. Respondent
APPEARANCE :
Shri G. Derricksam, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI. C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO,MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2019 DATE OF DECISION : 01.11.2019 FINAL ORDER No. 41245 / 2019 PER P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO This appeal is filed against OIA No. C.Cus.No.1296/2012 dt.
30.10.2012.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
2
3. The appellant herein had exported leather declared as "Goat heel grip finished upper leather" and "Goat soft Kid Upper finished leather"
vide Shipping Bill No.4255101 dt. 25.09.2010. As per the EXIM Policy only finished leathers of all kinds which conform to the description in Public Notice No.21/2009-2009-14 dt. 01.12.2009 are freely exportable and others require a valid export licence issued by the DGFT. On 29.9.2010, a sample of their leather was sent by the Customs to the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI) who vide their report dt.05.10.2010 reported as follows :
"Sir, Sub : Finished Leather Certification Ref : Your Letter No.S.Misc.241/10-EE dated 29.09.2010 SB No.4255101 dated 25.09.2010 The Institute has assessed the below mentioned sample of Leather in the light of Public Notice No:21/2009-14 dated 01.12.2009 and certifies that the Leather referred to the above DOES NOT SATISFY the norms and conditions laid down in the aforesaid order for the type of Finished Leather as declared.** It may please be noted that the above opinion is Technical and Academic and not intended for Publicity /Advertisement / Legal purposes. The Institute shall be indemnified against any dispute arising out of this Letter.
Yours truly,
ENCL: LEATHER SAMPLE (DESIGNATED AUTHORITY)
** Goat Heel Grip Suede Leather
Colour : GREY
(II)
** The sample fails to satisfy the norms and conditions for the following
reasons.
ABSENCE OF SNUFFING IMPARTING VISUAL REMOVAL OF GRAIN"3
Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner held that the entire consignment which was exported was liable for confiscation under Section 113 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. As the consignment had already been exported he imposed a redemption fine of Rs.30,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He also ordered payment of Rs.98,701/- towards export duty on the export consignment and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 114 (ii) of the Customs Act. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed before the first appellate authority who rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the CLRI report clearly shows that they have tested the sample for "Goat Heel Grip Suede Leather (Colour: Grey)" and found that the sample does not match this description in terms of the public notice. He would submit that as can be seen from the shipping bill they have nowhere described their product as "Suede Leather" but declared it as "Goat heel grip finished upper leather" and "Goat soft Kid Upper finished leather". Evidently, the goods were not tested for this description but for some other description. The entire SCN was based on this wrong test report. Therefore, the same needs to be set aside and the appeal needs to be allowed.
5. Ld.D.R reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and asserts that since the CLRI has certified that the goods which were exported do not match the description the goods were correctly held to be liable for confiscation and penalties were correctly imposed. 4
6. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The goods were held liable for confiscation under Section 113
(d) i.e., for export in violation of prohibition or restriction based on the test report that the sample does not match the description "Goat Heel Grip Suede leather; Colour: Grey". We find that this was not description in the Shipping Bill at all. The norm in all imports and exports is that the description in the declaration made by the importer or export is accepted subject to any test reports or examination reports which may prove the description to be incorrect. In this case, the report in question is the test report by Central Leather Research Institute which has tested the goods for a description other than the description in the shipping bill. The confiscation of the goods on the basis of the test report or consequential imposition of penalty cannot survive. For this reason alone, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable and needs to be set aside and we do so. Appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside with consequential benefit, if any.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in court) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) (P. Venkata Subba Rao) Member (Technical) gs 5