2008 (8) TMI 188 - HC - Customs

Appellant's Export Dispute Over Cotton Trousers Upheld Under Customs Act

KIRAN FASHIONS Versus UNION OF INDIA

The appellant challenged the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the export of men's cotton trousers, disputing the ... Plea that tribunal not considered the documentary evidence produced before Commissioner – plea that tribunal ought to have called for the said evidence by directing representative of department to produce the original file of adjudication before the Commissioner – held that Tribunal is not expected and cannot on its own undertake to discharge that onus by calling upon the other side to produce the evidence in support of appeal - it is not the duty of Tribunal to establish the case of any party Issues Involved:1. Challenge to the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal2. Ignoring evidence of comparative invoicing under Customs Act, 19623. Allegations of over invoicing without evidence4. Differing from Government fixed cut off price5. Reliability of retracted statements as evidence6. Justification for penalty under customs act7. Proceeding on assumption without actual export evidence8. Imposing fines by customs authorities without allowing actual export9. Imposition of liability under sections 113 & 114 of the Customs ActAnalysis:1. The appellant challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, questioning the authorities' disregard for evidence of comparative invoicing under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued against allegations of over invoicing and the authorities differing from the Government fixed cut off price. The reliance on retracted statements as the sole evidence, imposition of penalties without substantial evidence, and proceeding on assumptions without actual export evidence were also contested.2. The case involved the export of men's cotton trousers, with the appellant claiming duty drawback based on the cost structure. However, discrepancies in the cost of fabric and manufacturing led to the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties by the adjudicating authority under sections 113(d) and 113(i) of the Act. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, which found interconnected concerns and rejected retractions of statements made by involved parties.3. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision based on valid reasons, including the analysis of evidence and statements provided. The appellant's contention that the Tribunal ignored documentary evidence was dismissed, emphasizing the appellant's responsibility to present relevant documents and establish their case. The Tribunal's order was deemed justified, as it was based on the facts and evidence presented, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.4. The judgment highlighted the importance of the appellant fulfilling the onus of proof and presenting necessary evidence before the Tribunal. Without specific pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal could not be faulted for its decision. The order of the Tribunal was upheld, as no substantial question of law arose from the appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the case and rejection of a related civil application as infructuous.