Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Siba International vs Nhava Sheve - Ii on 14 October, 2022

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                     MUMBAI

                    WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

                Customs Appeal No. 87733 of 2019

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 162 (CAC)/2019(JNCH)/Appeal-I dated
19.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II.)


M/s Siba International                               ........Appellant
          nd
T-222, 2 Floor, Gali No.-3,
Nawab Road, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi - 110 006


                                VERSUS


Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-II              ........Respondent
JNPT, Customs House,
Nhava Sheva, Raigad,
Maharashtra - 400 707


APPERANCE:

Shri N.D. George, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri D.S. Maan, Dy. Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the
Respondent

CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)


      FINAL ORDER NO. A/85949 / 2022


                                           Date of Hearing: 28.07.2022
                                           Date of Decision: 14.10.2022




      Confirmation of penalty by the Commissioner of Customs

(Appeals), Mumbai-II at the reduced rate of Rs.15,00,000/- from

Rs.20,00,000/- under Section 114 of the Customs Act for improper

export of buffalo meat is assailed by the Appellant-Exporter in this

appeal.
                                                            C/87733/2019

                                  2




2.    Facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant-Exporter Siba

International was engaged in export of processed buffalo meat after

procuring the same from M/s. Al-Azlan Frozen Foods, Moradabad

(UP) an approved processing plant for export of boneless buffalo

meat as a prescribed condition under Chapter 2 of Schedule 2 of the

ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import items requires the

exporter to produce certificate from the designated veterinary

authority as well as from the quality control and inspection authority,

besides the facts that a declaration is required to be furnished with

copies of authorised APEDA certificate to the effect that meat and

meat products were sourced exclusively from APEDA registered meat

processing plant M/s. Al-Azlan Frozen Foods was authorised by

APEDA from 27.09.2012 to 31.03.2013 to process such meat for

export and Appellant exported about 14862.737 MT of buffalo meat

during that period.    Departmental enquiry was conducted upon

credible information. It revealed that processing capacity of M/s. Al-

Azlan Frozen Foods, authorised by APEDA, was limited to 62 MT of

meat per day and having regard to the period that covered total 185

days, it could at best have processed 11472 MT of buffalo meat

against which 14862.737 MT was exported and drawback was

received by the Appellant.    It was, therefore, put to show-cause

notice for exporting 3392.737 MT of meat in excess of its production

capacity and to refund the drawback received alongwith interest and

penalty under Section 114 for improper exportation of buffalo meat.

Order-in-Original confirmed the demand but in the Order-in-Appeal,

learned Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped the demand for return
                                                             C/87733/2019

                                   3




of drawback on the ground that no provision exist in the Customs Act

for such recovery but confirmed the penalty under Section 114 of the

Customs Act by reducing it from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/-,

with appropriation of the said amount which was deposited by the

Appellant during investigation.



3.    I have heard submissions from both the sides and perused the

case record, written note of submissions, relevant provisions as well

as relied upon case laws.    At the outset, there is a requirement of

reproduction of Chapter 2 of Schedule 2 of ITC (HS) classification of

export and import items containing relevant restrictions. They are:-


     "i      On production of a certificate from the designated
     veterinary authority of the state from which the meat or
     offals emanate, to the effect that the meat or offals are from
     buffaloes not used for breeding and milching purpose;

     ii     Quality control and inspection under Note 3 and 4
     respectively as well as conditions stipulated at Chapter Note
     6 and 8 are required to be fulfilled."


Further, Note 6 of the said Chapter 2 of Export Policy reads:-

     "Note-6 export of meat and meat products will be allowed
     subject to the exporter furnishing a declaration, attached
     with the copies of valid APEDA Plan Registration
     Certificates(s) to the customs at the time of export that the
     above items have been obtained / sourced from an APEDA
     registered integrated abattoir or from APEDA registered
     meat processing plant which sources raw materials
     exclusively from APEDA registered integrated abattoir /
     abattoir. The stipulation that raw material for export of meat
     and meat products must be sourced exclusively from APEDA
     registered abattoir / integrated abattoir will come into effect
     on 15.06.2012."
                                                              C/87733/2019

                                   4




4.    There is no dispute concerning compliance of the conditions (i)

& (ii) but the Respondent-Department is of the opinion that since

Note 6 contains a direction that export of meat and meat products

must be sourced exclusively from APEDA approved plants and this

M/s. Al-Azlan Frozen Foods could not produce more than 62 MT of

frozen buffalo meat per day, there is improper export done by the

Appellant.     On perusal of the show-cause notice, the Order-in-

Original and the Order-in-Appeal it would clearly indicate that they

have referred to 'buffalo meat' and 'processed frozen buffalo meat'

interchangeably at different places but consistently stated that M/s.

Al-Azlan Frozen Food's production capacity of buffalo meat per day is

62 MT.       However, going by the APEDA certificate of registration

granted to M/s. Al-Azlan Frozen Foods, copy of which is annexed to

appeal memo at page 23, the production capacity of this food

processing unit M/s. Al-Azlan Frozen Foods was 62 MT of "frozen

meat" per day and 40 MT of "chilled meat" per day and if both are

taken together it would be consistent to the pleading of the Appellant

reiterated in para 27 of the Order-in-Original. It reads:-


     "27.    Shri George N. D., Advocate vide letter dated
     02.03.2015 filed defence reply on behalf of Notice M/s Siba
     International, wherein, they denied all the allegation made
     in SCN and inter-alia stated they were permitted to Process
     Chilled Meat 40 MT and Frozen Meat 62 MT therefore, the
     total quantity of meat processed could have been only
     11470 MT is not correct as the said Calculation is on the
     basis of Frozen Meat. The Chilled, Meat has not been
                                                               C/87733/2019

                                   5




    considered. That being so the total Quantity available for
    export on the basis APEDA authorization was 18870 MT and
    the total Quantity exported is 14862.737 MT. Hence, there
    cannot be any Unlawful Processing or Export. Further, all
    the Exports were accompanied by Veterinary Health
    Certificate issued by the Government of India. There is no
    Mis declaration and / or any wilful Suppression. Therefore,
    there is no Unlawful Exports as alleged.
                                       (Underlined to emphasise)

    However, on scrutiny of the shipping bills and respective
    invoices, it is crystal clear that description of the goods in
    each shipping bills as mentioned in Table-A, was declared as
    "Frozen Boneless Buffalo Meat". Also, Shri Anees Ahmad
    common partner in both the firms M/s Al-Azlan Frozen
    Foods vide his statements had admitted that the quantity of
    3392.737 MT buffalo meat was unlawfully exported, and
    they paid the amount of drawback availed on the impugned
    quantity of exported buffalo meat. Thus, I find that goods
    under export covered under shipping bills included in the
    subject Show-Cause Notice were 'Frozen Boneless Buffalo
    Meat'. Therefore, submission made by the noticee that the
    Chilled meat was not considered appears an afterthought
    and cannot be accepted at this juncture."
                                            (Underlined to emphasise)


However, the ground of rejection of the said submissions, that could

be inferred from the sub paragraph of para 27 is that in the shipping

bills, goods were described as frozen boneless buffalo meat as per

Table A perhaps annexed to the show-cause notice and reproduced

in the Order-in-Original but not filed in the appeal memo.          On the

contrary,   show-cause   notice   did   not   propose   for   any   action

concerning mis-declaration in the shipping bills or propose any

penalty, for which discussion on the same is outside the purview of

this appeal, besides the fact that not a single shipping bill is annexed

to the show-cause notice to substantiate that description of goods
                                                                      C/87733/2019

                                        6




exported was different.         Since nowhere during adjudication, the

Appellant had ever averred that it had exported only frozen meat and

as Note 6 has not kept the category of export of meats to frozen one

only, there is no basis in the claim made by the Department. This

being facts on record and having regard to the fact that Respondent-

Department had not taken into consideration the entire production

capacity of M/s. Al-Azlan Frozen Foods and confined it to 62 MT meat

to presume such mis-declaration though it is only in respect of frozen

buffalo meat only, imposition of penalty on the basis of mathematical

variation is unsustainable in law and facts. Hence the order.


                                       ORDER

6. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II vide Order-in-Appeal No. 162 (CAC)/2019(JNCH)/Appeal-I dated 19.07.2019 to the extent of confirmation of penalty at a reduced rate of Rs.15,00,000/- is hereby set aside with consequential relief to the Appellant.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 14.10.2022) (Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati) Member (Judicial) Prasad