2013 (11) TMI 39 - AT - Customs

Appellant ordered to pre-deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs within 6 weeks for duty discrepancies. Evidence crucial.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 2.5 lakhs within six weeks due to discrepancies between the Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) and ... Demand of duty in the absence of proof of realization of export proceedings (foreign exchange) towards export of goods – Waiver of pre-deposit - The appellant claims to have paid export duty on the goods on the basis of the transaction value which is claimed to have been realized from the foreign buyer – Held that:- Prima facie, the demand raised on the appellant and estimating the respective amounts of duty at the respective rates in the absence of evidence of the claim made by the assessee on the basis of BRC appears to be factually and legally correct - no plea of financial hardships supported by any evidence - the appellant was directed to pre-deposit an amount – upon such submission there will be waiver and stay in respect of the balance amount of duty – Partial stay granted. Issues:Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of duty demanded on two consignments of iron ore fines based on discrepancies between Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) and export documents.Analysis:The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for duty demanded on two consignments of iron ore fines based on discrepancies between the Bank Realization Certificate (BRC) and export documents. The appellant claimed to have paid export duty on the goods according to the transaction value realized from the foreign buyer. However, the authorities did not find a correlation between the BRC produced by the appellant and the export documents, leading to the confirmation of the duty demand against them. The Tribunal carefully examined the documents, including BRC, commercial invoice, and shipping bills, but found unsatisfactory correlation between the declared values and figures in the BRC. The queries made by the Tribunal did not receive satisfactory responses supporting the appellant's claim. Consequently, the demand raised on the appellant for duty appeared factually and legally correct as there was no evidence to substantiate the appellant's position based on the BRC.In the absence of evidence supporting the appellant's claim and no plea of financial hardships with substantiating evidence, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 2.5 lakhs within six weeks. The appellant was instructed to report compliance to the Deputy Registrar by a specified date. Subject to due compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, there would be a waiver and stay in respect of the balance amount of duty. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of satisfactory correlation between the declared values and figures in the BRC, as well as the absence of evidence supporting the appellant's position and financial hardships claim.The judgment highlighted the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims, especially in cases involving discrepancies between documents like the BRC and export documents. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasonable approach in assessing such cases and directed the appellant to comply with the pre-deposit requirement to avail waiver and stay for the balance amount of duty demanded.