CESTAT sets aside customs denial of IGST refund over SCOMET violations, orders proper licensing authority consultation

CESTAT Mumbai set aside customs authority's order denying IGST refund based on alleged SCOMET regime violations. The tribunal found the adjudicating authority took a superficial view without obtaining authoritative opinion from licensing authority on whether goods fell under restricted categories. The authority incorrectly assumed restrictions could be broadly applied and failed to properly consider appellant's defense that their fermenters didn't meet specified SCOMET criteria. Matter remanded to original authority to obtain licensing authority's opinion on SCOMET applicability before disposing the show cause notice. Appeals allowed by way of remand.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged contravention of notification no. 29/2015-20 dated 21st September 2017 regarding SCOMET regime.
2. Confiscation of exported goods and imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Interpretation of notifications and applicability of Supreme Court judgments.
4. Burden of proof in customs proceedings.
5. Compliance with SCOMET regime and licensing requirements.
6. Role of customs brokers in export transactions.

Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations of contravening notification no. 29/2015-20 dated 21st September 2017, which restricted cross-border transactions under the SCOMET regime. The exports of 'fermenters and parts thereof' were scrutinized for non-compliance with licensing requirements for such goods.

2. The Customs Act, 1962 was invoked to confiscate the impugned goods and impose fines and penalties. The original order imposed significant fines and penalties on the exporter, individual directors, and customs brokers involved in handling the exports.

3. The adjudicating authority relied on the descriptions in shipping bills matching the restricted goods under the notification. The authority dismissed defenses based on Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the SCOMET regime governed trade policy, not tax exemptions as in the cited cases.

4. The burden of proof in customs proceedings was discussed, emphasizing the need for establishing charges by a preponderance of probabilities rather than mathematical precision. The department was not required to unravel every detail but establish the case to a reasonable degree.

5. Compliance with the SCOMET regime and licensing requirements was a focal point. The exporter's subsequent actions in obtaining licenses were considered indicative of coverage under the restricted regime. The appellate tribunal highlighted the need for authoritative opinions from the licensing authority in such cases.

6. The role of customs brokers in the export transactions was also scrutinized. The appellants argued that their role was limited to filing shipping bills and complying with assessment procedures, deflecting allegations of infractions under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reference to the licensing authority to determine the applicability of the SCOMET regime. The tribunal emphasized the need for factual ascertainment in adjudication and adherence to established law to ensure a fair and accurate resolution of the case.

---