G.D. INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the exporter is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad dated 29 -11 -2001.

(2.) The appellant presented for export 147000 ladies skirts under 9 shipping bills dated 1 -2 -2000, 7 -2 -2000, 9 -2 -2000, 9 -2 -2000, 11 -2 -2000, 14 -2 -2000, 15 -2 -2000, 14 -2 -2000 and 14 -2 -2000 for export. Goods under two shipping bills were being exported to Cairo. The other seven to Jordan. The Commissioner passed order confiscating the above goods and allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1,75,000/ -. Drawback claimed by the appellant on the above shipping bills as well as previous eight consignments was denied. Amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed as penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the above, the exporter has come up in appeal.

(3.) The appellant had declared FOB value of Rs. 46,20,603.35 in respect of nine shipping bills referred above and claimed a drawback of Rs. 7,39,296.54. The goods were subjected to 100% examination on 22 -2 -2000 in the presence of Shri Deepak Dhembla, proprietor of the appellant -exporter. On examination it was found that the goods do not satisfy the description, even though they were ladies skirts and they could be qualified to be rags. The total value was appraised as Rs. 1,75,000/ -. The goods were not found worthy of export. Alleging that the exporter had over invoiced with deliberate intention to claim excess drawback and defraud the revenue, the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the statement given by Shri Deepak Dhembla on 22 -2 -2000 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, he contended that at the time of filing the papers in respect of the consignment he was out of country, that in his absence the work was done by his staff and wrong consignments were brought to the port for export. He requested permission to withdraw the consignment after adjudication of the case. He agreed with the examination reports and he wanted to forego the drawback amount claimed. He also stated that the skirts imported by him in past under 8 shipping bills were of the same quality as that of goods under the 9 shipping bills lying uncleared and he wanted to forego the amount of drawback claimed in respect of the said 8 shipping bills also. Later on in his statement dated 27 -4 -2000 recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, he contended that the goods were given to Mr. Maurya who was holding Customs authority (G -Card) for clearance.