Revenue loses appeal as export transactions under Target Plus Scheme ruled genuine with no circular trading found

CESTAT Ahmedabad dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging acquittal in circular trading case involving cut and polished diamonds and gold jewellery exports under Target Plus Scheme. Tribunal found identical allegations were previously rejected by CESTAT Mumbai and SC upheld genuineness of transactions. Joint DGFT accepted no circular trading occurred and redeemed advance licenses covering disputed exports. Since licensing authority confirmed export obligations were discharged lawfully, no breach of customs notification conditions existed. Revenue failed to establish mis-declaration or fraudulent benefit claims, providing no valid grounds for duty demand, confiscation, or penalties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Mis-declaration of FOB value and circular trading of Cut and Polished Diamonds (CPD) and Gold Jewellery.
2. Misuse of the Target Plus Scheme.
3. Confiscation of goods under various sections of the Customs Act.
4. Demand of customs duty and penalties.
5. Allegations of circular trading and financial manipulation.
6. Validity of evidence and statements provided by the parties.

Detailed Analysis:

Mis-declaration of FOB Value and Circular Trading:
The revenue alleged that the respondents indulged in mis-declaration of FOB value and circular trading of CPD and Gold Jewellery to artificially inflate their export turnover and fraudulently avail benefits under the Target Plus Scheme. The investigation revealed that the exported studded Jewellery was re-melted at a refinery in UAE and converted into Gold bars, which were then re-exported to Indian companies. The respondents argued that the goods exported were indeed gold studded jewellery, and the Commissioner examined the evidence and concluded that the goods exported were not merely gold but gold studded jewellery, thus rejecting the revenue's allegations.

Misuse of the Target Plus Scheme:
The investigation revealed that the respondents exported studded Jewellery to avail benefits under the Target Plus Scheme. The DGFT later excluded the export of studded Gold Jewellery and diamonds from the scheme. The respondents argued that the allegations were based on the same investigation as an earlier case where the Tribunal and the Supreme Court had ruled in their favor, confirming that there was no circular trading or mis-declaration.

Confiscation of Goods:
The revenue proposed the confiscation of Gold under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act and the confiscation of export goods under Section 113(i). The Commissioner, however, dropped the proceedings, concluding that the goods exported were indeed gold studded jewellery and not merely gold bars, thus rejecting the grounds for confiscation.

Demand of Customs Duty and Penalties:
The revenue demanded customs duty foregone on the import of goods not used for manufacturing as prescribed under the advance licenses, along with interest and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act. The Commissioner rejected these demands, stating that the exported goods were correctly declared and the value addition was genuine.

Allegations of Circular Trading and Financial Manipulation:
The revenue alleged that the respondents engaged in circular trading and financial manipulation to inflate export turnover. The Commissioner, after examining the evidence, including statements from job workers and supporting manufacturers, concluded that there was no circular trading. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the evidence did not support the revenue's allegations.

Validity of Evidence and Statements:
The revenue relied on various documents, statements, and emails to support their allegations. The respondents argued that these documents were unauthenticated and not reliable. The Commissioner and the Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the respondents, including notarized documents and certificates from recognized jewellers' associations, was more credible. The Tribunal also noted that the revenue failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claims.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the proceedings against the respondents, rejecting the revenue's allegations of mis-declaration, circular trading, and misuse of the Target Plus Scheme. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the respondents was credible and that the revenue failed to prove their case. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed, and the orders of the Commissioner were upheld.

---