Export-bond liability rested on the exporter, so duty could not be fastened on the manufacturer for non-exported molasses.

Export-bond liability for molasses attached to the exporter who filed the export application and executed the bond, not to the manufacturer who merely supplied the goods. Because the competent authority accepted proof of export and condoned the shortage, and that order was not challenged, it attained finality and could not be disregarded by the appellate authority. On that basis, duty could not be imposed on the manufacturer for alleged non-export of goods removed for export under bond.

---

---

Issues: Whether the manufacturer could be fastened with duty liability for molasses alleged to have been removed for export but not exported, when the export application and bond stood in the name of the exporter and the competent authority had condoned the shortage.

Analysis: The export application was filed by the exporter and the bond for export was also executed by the exporter. The competent authority had accepted the proof of export and condoned the shortage. That order was not challenged by the Department and therefore attained finality. In such a situation, the appellate authority could not disregard or set aside the unchallenged order on its own. The scheme of export under bond places liability for non-exported goods on the person who removed the goods for export and furnished the bond. Since the manufacturer had not removed the goods under bond, duty liability could not be imposed on it.

Conclusion: The duty demand against the manufacturer was unsustainable and the appeal succeeded.

---