Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Adani Exports Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Tuticorin on 5 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/252/2003
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.16/03 dated 2.7.03 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTRANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Adani Exports Ltd.
Appellant/s
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri S.Murugappan, Advocate Shri T.H.Rao, SDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 5.8.2009 Date of decision : 5.8.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs has disallowed DEPB credit of Rs.2,61,385/- availed by the appellants herein on certain Shipping Bills for the reason that manufacturer of the goods covered by the Shipping Bills namely M/s.Viswabharathi Mills Ltd. was a 100% EoU. He has held that the goods exported are liable to confiscation and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- upon the appellants.
2. We have heard both sides. The appellants do not dispute the finding of non-admissibility of DEPB credit. The only challenge is to the imposition of penalty on the ground that penalty has been imposed for contravention of Section 50 (2) of the Customs Act read with Rule 14 of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 which, according to the appellants, is not attracted against them for the reason that they had clearly shown in the AR-4 that the manufacturer was a 100% EoU. However, we are not able to bring ourselves to accept this submission for the reason that Section 50 provides for subscribing to a declaration as to the truth of the contents of the shipping bill in the case of export of goods by vessel or aircraft and the very filing of DEPB shipping bill which does not indicate that the manufacturer is a 100% EoU is a contravention of Section 50 (2). In these circumstances, the argument that the declaration in the AR-4 is sufficient, cannot be accepted.
3. We, therefore, reject the submission that no penalty is imposable. However, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only). The impugned order is modified to this extent and the appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
4