2004 (5) TMI 104 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns export rejection due to misdeclaration, citing denial of re-test opportunity.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order regarding the rejection of export shipments due to acrylic fibers, misdeclaration of goods, and confiscation ... Adjudication - Natural justice - Test report Issues Involved:The judgment involves the rejection of export shipments due to the presence of acrylic fibers, misdeclaration of export goods, confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, penalty under Section 114(1) of the Act, denial of re-test request, and denial of natural justice.Rejection of Export Shipments:The appeal was against the rejection of two shipments by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) for not meeting the export obligation due to the presence of acrylic fibers in the consignments, which were deemed impermissible. The rejection led to a short shipment concerning the required export obligation.Misdeclaration of Export Goods and Confiscation:The Commissioner held the presence of acrylic fibers, along with Mohair and Polyester, as misdeclaration of export goods, making them liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importers were consequently held liable for a penalty under Section 114(1) of the Act, with a redemption fine imposed on the goods.Denial of Re-Test Request and Natural Justice:Upon contesting the test reports' accuracy, the appellants requested a re-test of the samples, which was not granted by the authorities. The Tribunal emphasized the appellants' right to contest the test report's correctness, stating that denial of this right equates to a denial of natural justice. The absence of a re-test report led to the findings based on the initial test report being discarded.Judgment:The Tribunal noted that only two out of sixteen export consignments showed adverse reports of acrylic fibers, with no samples drawn from two shipments. As the appellants were denied the opportunity for a re-test, the findings of the initial test report were deemed unreliable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.