MEIS benefits allowed for frozen seafood exports after customs wrongly denied classification 03031900 for Leather Jacket Fish

CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal challenging denial of MEIS benefits for frozen seafood exports. The appellant exported Leather Jacket Fish under classification 03031900, which was eligible for MEIS during the relevant period. Revenue alleged wilful misclassification without evidence of suppression or misdeclaration. The goods were clearly described as Leather Jacket Fish in all documents, exports were allowed based on approved documents, and DGFT issued scrips after verification. Since DGFT had no objection to accepting shipping bills for MEIS benefits and scrips were valid in importers' hands, customs denial was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside with consequential benefits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Misclassification of Export Goods
2. Eligibility for MEIS Benefits
3. Invocation of Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962
4. Validity of MEIS Scrips for Importers

Summary:

1. Misclassification of Export Goods:
The appellant, M/s. Dolphin Wires Pvt. Ltd., exported 'Frozen Leather Jacket Fish' under Chapter Heading 0303 1900 and claimed MEIS benefits. The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) later deleted Chapter Heading 0303 8999 from the MEIS schedule. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) found that the appellant had misclassified the goods to claim ineligible benefits. The Commissioner confirmed the misclassification and imposed a demand of Rs.1,34,51,498/- along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 13,50,000 under Section 114AA.

2. Eligibility for MEIS Benefits:
The appellant argued that they consistently classified the goods under Chapter Heading 0303 1900 from 2014 onwards and claimed MEIS benefits in good faith. They contended that there was no evidence of intentional misdeclaration or suppression of facts. The DGFT had issued the MEIS scrips after verifying the documents, and the Customs accepted the classification at the time of export.

3. Invocation of Section 28AAA of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 28AAA, which allows recovery of duties if an instrument is obtained by collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The Tribunal found no evidence of collusion or suppression by the appellant. The classification under Chapter Heading 0303 1900 was accepted by Customs, and the DGFT issued the scrips based on verified documents. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Northern Plastic Limited vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, which held that unless suppression or wilful misstatement is proved, invoking Section 28AAA is unsustainable.

4. Validity of MEIS Scrips for Importers:
The Commissioner dropped the demand against importers who utilized the MEIS scrips, stating that the scrips were valid and legally obtained. The Tribunal noted that if the scrips were valid for importers, they should also be valid for the exporter. The DGFT's letter confirmed that exports of Leather Jacket Fish under Chapter Heading 0303 1900 during the relevant period should be regularized.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no reason to uphold the impugned order, setting it aside and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. The Tribunal emphasized that the reclassification by the department after the DGFT's Public Notice cannot be detrimental to the appellant's interests, and the elements required to invoke Section 28AAA were not proven.

---