Tribunal overturns order, upholds export to Iran via UAE, stresses natural justice

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeals by M/s Bansal Fine Foods Pvt. Ltd. It found no violation in the export of rice to Iran via Jebel Ali, UAE, noting the goods ultimately reached Iran. Statements were inadmissible without cross-examination, violating natural justice. The genuineness of export documents and remittances was upheld. Customs lacked jurisdiction over FEMA violations. The Customs House Agent was not liable as they acted in good faith. The decision stressed natural justice, evidence admissibility, and jurisdictional clarity in foreign trade regulation enforcement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Mis-declaration of destination port and delivery of goods.
2. Admissibility of statements under Section 138B of the Customs Act.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination.
4. Genuineness of export documents and remittances.
5. Jurisdiction of Customs authorities in cases of alleged Foreign Trade Policy and FEMA violations.
6. Liability of the Customs House Agent (CHA).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Mis-declaration of Destination Port and Delivery of Goods:
The appellant, M/s Bansal Fine Foods Pvt. Ltd., exported rice under eight shipping bills originally booked for Iran but delivered to Jebel Ali, UAE. The adjudicating authority held that this constituted a violation of the Foreign Trade Policy (para 2.40 and 2.53) and imposed penalties under Sections 113(i), 113(d), 114, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the goods, though offloaded at Jebel Ali, ultimately reached Iran, supported by remittance receipts from the Iranian consignee. The Tribunal found no evidence to show that the goods were cleared for domestic consumption in Dubai, noting that the packaging was marked in Iranian language, and UAE regulations prohibit domestic clearance of such goods.

2. Admissibility of Statements under Section 138B of the Customs Act:
The department relied on statements from various individuals, but these were not examined in the adjudication proceedings, making them inadmissible under Section 138B of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that for statements to be admissible, the individuals must be examined as witnesses, and the appellant must be given an opportunity for cross-examination.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Due to Denial of Cross-examination:
The Tribunal found that the denial of cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant's request for cross-examination was denied, which was critical for ensuring a fair trial. The Tribunal cited the Madras High Court's decision in Veetrag Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, which underscored the importance of cross-examination in upholding natural justice.

4. Genuineness of Export Documents and Remittances:
The Tribunal noted that all export documents were in the name of Iranian buyers, and there was no evidence that these documents were amended to permit import at UAE. The department failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the export documents were false or fabricated. The Tribunal also observed that the remittances were received from the Iranian consignee through proper banking channels, and there was no dispute regarding the authenticity of these remittances.

5. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities in Cases of Alleged Foreign Trade Policy and FEMA Violations:
The Tribunal held that any violations related to foreign exchange are covered under FEMA, 1999, and not under the Customs Act. The Customs authorities did not have jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice for alleged violations of the Foreign Trade Policy and FEMA. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments, including Chinku Exports v. Commissioner of Customs, which established that enforcement authorities under FEMA and RBI are competent to initiate proceedings for such violations.

6. Liability of the Customs House Agent (CHA):
The Tribunal found that the CHA, M/s. V. Arjoon, filed shipping bills based on documents provided by the exporter and acted in good faith. Since the goods were ultimately delivered to the buyers in Iran, there was no justification for imposing a penalty on the CHA. The penalty imposed on the CHA was set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeals filed by the appellants with consequential relief as per law. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, the admissibility of evidence, and the appropriate jurisdiction for addressing alleged violations of foreign trade and exchange regulations.

---