2023 (9) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....78.45 2. 8195830 dated 26.3.2012 Futan Leathers Gown World Inc. 32 25002 39503.16 3. 8193846 dated 26.3.2012 Arman Leather Exports Ample Dragan Enterprises 13 10506.8 16810.88 2. On examination it was seen that the consignments in respect of Shri ALM Leather Exports and M/s. Futan Leathers did not conform to the standards of finished leather. Samples were drawn and sent for testing to CLRI, Chennai. The report was received stating that the goods did not fulfill the standard of finished leather as per public notice no.21/2009/14 dated 1/12/2009 for the reason that the processes of dyeing and shaving/snuffing has not been done. The appellants thereafter got provisional release of the goods; and after reprocessing the goods were exported. The department issued the present Show Cause Notice alleging attempted export of prohibited goods and proposing to confiscate the goods, to impose redemption file and penalties. After due process of law, the original authority held that as the goods which were unfinished leather were attempted to be exported as finished leather, the goods are liable for confiscation. As goods were already provisionally rel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....one 2 inches on either side in the case of goat and sheep skin and in the case of bovine hides / sides and calf skins all over the grain side. 6. The degree of dyeing and snuffing varies depending on the requirement of the buyer. The Ld. counsel submitted that even in situations where the goods were exported after completing the processes, the charge of confiscation fails. Once the goods have been exported, the imposition of the redemption fine is without any legal basis. There was no intention on the part of appellant / exporters to violate the provisions of law. It is pleaded that penalties may be set aside. 7. The decision in the case of Vijayalakshmi Leathers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2000 (119) ELT 656 (Tribunal) to argue that when process of dyeing as well as snuffing/shaving was absent, the Tribunal held that these were minor variations. It was observed that the appellant having incurred considerable financial loss on account of taking the goods back for reprocessing and the delay in carrying out their exports and realization of export value, the Tribunal set aside the redemption fine and penalties imposed by department. The decision in the case of Commissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is that the appellants attempted to export unfinished leather in the guise of finished leather. The statement recorded from the exporters and others reveal that the exporters do not own a tannery or factory for manufacture of leather. They placed job work orders with various persons and collected leather for export from them after processing. These were sent directly from such persons to the air cargo complex. Shri R. Anand (who is no more) was in charge of the exports in the CHA firm (M/s.Kalki Shipping Associates). It is stated by Shri. A. Chandrakumar, Proprietor of the CHA firm with Shri Anand was having the over all charge of exports and approached the clients directly and collected documents for filing shipping bills. Shri Anand was taking care of the export related work at air cargo complex. On 30 March 2012 Anand informed him about the wrong unloading 64 bundles of M/s. Elite Leathers instead of 63 bundles of the exporters, namely M/s. Futan Leathers, M/s. Arman Leather Exports and M/s.ALM Leather Exports. He immediately instructed Mr. Anand to sort out the matter with Air Customs. It has been argued by the Ld. counsel that there was some mistake as the consignment of M/s. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....confiscation of the goods and the penalties have been caused by their failure to satisfy both the sides. As the goods tendered for export conforms to most of the criteria and the variations has been explained as minor and on account of differences between the C.L.R.I. deficiencies and requirements of the buyers, these cannot be considered o be deliberate or committed with intent to export prohibited goods out of the country. With regard to deficiencies, the Appellants are only seeking permission to take the goods back to the units and to make good the deficiencies. There was also no deliberate attempt to conceal the deficiencies or to misdeclare the goods. The whole dispute has arisen only because of variations, inaccuracies in mechanical operations or the difference between experts and traders with regard to grades. There was no effort to export prohibited goods. The Appellants have already incurred considerable financial loss on account of taking the goods back for reprocessing and the delay in carrying out their exports and realization of he export value. Taking all these facts and circumstances into account, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the Appellants an....