Export drawback and confiscation for meat shipments fail where alleged sourcing breach rests on presumption, not evidence.

Export drawback, confiscation and penalty in relation to frozen buffalo meat were examined against allegations that the consignments exceeded APEDA-approved slaughtering capacity and were sourced from non-approved suppliers. The analysis noted that the goods were processed and exported from an APEDA-approved integrated abattoir-cum-meat processing plant, with factory stuffing, customs sealing, valid health certificates and receipt of export proceeds in foreign exchange. As no tangible evidence linked the meat to outside sources, and the objection rested mainly on presumption from the slaughtering limit, the conditions for drawback were not shown to be breached. The basis for treating the goods as prohibited or for recovery and confiscation was therefore not established, and the demand, fine and penalty were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was liable to forfeiture of drawback and confiscation of exported frozen buffalo meat on the basis that the exports exceeded the approved slaughtering capacity and were allegedly sourced from non-approved sources, and whether the demand of drawback, interest, fine, and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The export consignment was admittedly processed and exported from the appellant's APEDA-approved integrated abattoir-cum-meat processing plant, with factory stuffing, sealing by customs/excise officers, valid health certificates issued by the competent State authority, and receipt of export proceeds in foreign exchange. The allegation that meat was sourced from outside was not supported by tangible evidence such as supplier details, transport records, or payment trail, and rested mainly on presumption drawn from the slaughtering limit mentioned in the APEDA certificate. The appellant had also shown that it had applied for enhancement of slaughtering capacity and that, in the absence of refusal by the Pollution Control Board, deemed consent operated under the relevant pollution control statutes. In these circumstances, the conditions for drawback were not shown to have been violated, and the basis for treating the goods as prohibited or for invoking recovery and confiscation provisions was not established.

Conclusion: The recovery of drawback, confiscation, fine, and penalty was not sustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---