Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the requirement in Circular No. 527/2/2000-CX. that the shipping bill copy be self-attested by the exporter or authorised person was mandatory so as to invalidate proof of export already produced, and whether the demand could survive when the export was otherwise shown.
Analysis: The circular was issued to remove practical difficulties faced by exporters in proving export, and its purpose was to identify the person attesting the copy rather than to create a rigid technical obstacle. Since the document produced before the authority could itself be attested and the underlying object of the circular was only to establish authenticity, insistence on prior attestation by the foreign customs authority was treated as unnecessary. The department's approach was found inconsistent with the remedial object of the circular.
Conclusion: The requirement was not treated as a fatal technical condition, and the assessee's proof of export was accepted. The demand and the appellate order against the assessee were set aside.
Final Conclusion: Technical non-compliance with the attestation formality did not defeat proof of export where the export was otherwise established on the record.
Ratio Decidendi: A circular intended to remove hardship to exporters must be applied so as to serve its remedial object, and a technical defect in attestation will not defeat substantive proof of export when authenticity can otherwise be established.