2025 (6) TMI 1977

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Section 114(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Briefly stated, facts are that the appellant filed a drawback shipping bill for the export of Buff sole Leather. The goods were subjected to examination before export. A sample of the consignment was drawn by CLRI for their expert opinion from Box No.396 on 26.12.2013. The CLRI vide their letter No. CLRI/TAN/CUSTOMS/5182/2013 dated 30.12.2013 certified that the leather referred above does not satisfy the norms and conditions laid down as per Public Notice No.21/2009-14 dated 01.12.2009 due to thickness less than 3mm and apparent density less than 0.9gm/c.c. As per the appellant's request dated 31.12.2013 to adjudicate the case allowing a personal hearing but without issue of show cause notic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the same. That the appellant is contesting the redemption fine and penalty as the goods were finished leather that was presented for export and there was no misdeclaration or intent or attempt to export unfinished leather. b) That both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that the DGFT Public Notice 21/2009 dated 01-12-2009 enumerates 13 types of finished leather and prescribing norms for the same and it was further provided that in any other case the CLRI has to certify as to the goods being finished leather or otherwise. c) That the appellant had declared the goods as Buffsole leather and it is not the case of the testing agency that the export goods are raw skins or hides and the test report vaguely stated that i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....attempted to export unfinished leather by mis-declaring the goods as finished leather. Further, when the appellant has declared the goods as 'Buff Sole Leather', neither the appellate authority nor the adjudicating authority has stated as to what is the deliberate act of misdeclaration that shows that the goods entered for exportation under claim for drawback did not correspond in any material particular with the information furnished by the appellant, so as to attract the liability to confiscation. No mens-rea to deliberately evade payment of duty is evidenced. Establishing mes-rea is a prerequisite to attribute attempt. In fact there is no evidence or any statement relied upon to indicate any contumacious conduct on the part of the appell....