Misdeclaration of vessel export not established where drawback registration alone did not prove a fraudulent attempt.

Preparation for drawback registration did not, by itself, establish a deliberate attempt to export an old and used vessel as a new one. The record showed only a free Shipping Bill, no matured drawback Shipping Bill because no EDI number was generated, and contemporaneous Customs treatment of the vessel as old and used. There was also no prior Customs seizure for the alleged export misdeclaration, and no concealment through logbooks or other material showing fraud. On that basis, no prima facie case was made out for interference, and the request to stay the order-in-appeal was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether there was a deliberate attempt to export an old and used vessel by misdeclaring it as a new vessel so as to justify confiscation and continued operation of the stay order.

Analysis: The only Shipping Bill on record was a free Shipping Bill, and the request for drawback registration had not matured into a filed drawback Shipping Bill because no EDI number was generated. The contemporaneous record showed that Customs treated the vessel as old and used, and there was no seizure by Customs on the alleged export misdeclaration before the vessel was separately seized in connection with non-payment of central excise duty. The record also did not establish concealment through logbooks or other material showing a fraudulent attempt to export the vessel in the garb of a new one. In these circumstances, the preparation for drawback registration did not by itself establish a deliberate attempt to export goods in a misdeclared form.

Conclusion: No prima facie case was made out for interference, and the request to stay the operation of the order-in-appeal was not sustainable.

---