1983 (8) TMI 256 - AT - Customs

Tribunal sets aside order due to lack of evidence, grants relief to appellants

SHREE SHEW SAKTI OIL MILLS LTD., CALCUTTA Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

The Tribunal accepted the appeal, highlighting the lack of evidence linking three exporting firms with alleged misdeclaration of goods in shipping bills. ... - Issues:1. Misdeclaration of goods in shipping bills for exporting Sesame Cake.2. Allegations of unauthorized export and misdeclaration of goods weight.3. Show cause notices issued for confiscation and penal action.4. Ex parte orders passed due to non-appearance of the appellants.5. Connection of the appellants with the exporting firms and goods in question.6. Lack of evidence linking the appellants with the alleged offenses.7. Grounds listed against the appellants in the show cause notices.8. Lack of proper findings and evidence assessment in the impugned order.The judgment involves three firms exporting Sesame Cake, facing allegations of misdeclaration in shipping bills to evade higher duty. Customs authorities found discrepancies in weight and goods description, leading to show cause notices for confiscation and penal action. The firms denied involvement, demanding document copies, but ex parte orders were passed due to non-appearance. The main contention was the lack of evidence linking the firms with the exporting activities, despite allegations based on booked space and endorsements. The Additional Collector's order lacked proper evidence assessment, merely copying allegations without discussion or findings, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the order for lack of sustainability.The show cause notices listed six grounds against the appellants, including booking freight, customs clearance, and arrangements made by associated firms for the export process. However, the lack of concrete evidence linking the appellants with these grounds was highlighted during the proceedings. The respondent relied on a letter to the bank requesting export duty payment on behalf of the exporting firms, but this evidence was not confronted to the appellants earlier. The Tribunal found this piece of evidence crucial but deemed it impractical to remand the case after three decades, holding the respondent responsible for not presenting it earlier. The lack of proper confrontation and explanation regarding this evidence led to the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order.In conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the appeal, emphasizing the insufficiency of evidence linking the appellants with the alleged offenses. The lack of proper findings and evidence assessment in the Additional Collector's order rendered it unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the order and granting the appellants consequential relief.