TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... scheme (MEIS)' and confiscation of goods, covered by 33 shipping bills, under section 113(i) of Customs Act, 1962 for alleged mis-declaration, with consequent fastening of redemption fine under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 as well as imposition of penalties under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962, in order [order-in-original no. 22/22-23/CC/NS-II/CAC/JNCH dated 29th June 2022] of Commissioner of Customs (NS-II), Nhava Sheva, are not tenable. 2. The appellant is an exporter of 'zeolite' mineral - which are essentially stones extracted from the earth and processed for aesthetic presentation - and had entered 76 packages of individual articles valued at Rs. 51,53,330, vide shipping bill 1470125/11.02.2017 on which intention of availing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Calicut v. Jupiter Trading Company [2019 (369) ELT 1524 (Tri.-Bang.]. It is also contended that the test results lacked credibility by failure to determine value which could not be overcome by relying upon into weight as criteria for extrapolation. The composition, as reported by the Deputy Chief Chemist (DyCC), was alleged to not suffice for classification of the goods and for which Learned Counsel placed reliance on decision of the Tribunal in Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Delhi v. N & N Traders [(2024) 18 Centax 274 (Tri.-Del)]. It is also submitted that the results submitted by Bombay Test House Private Limited merely reported conformity of the sample with 'natural zeolite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Supreme Court in Kothari Filaments v. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata [2009 (233) ELT 289 (SC)]. On behalf of respondent in the other appeal, it was submitted by Learned Counsel that the reliance upon value declared by other exporters was contingent upon determination that the goods were not processed and the evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority to arrive at such conclusion for redetermination of RITC was already disputed to shift onus onto customs authorities to establish that the compared goods were identical not only in design but also in quantity for which he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Sitaram Ramdhan & Co v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (330) ELT 210 (Tri - Del)]. It is also contended tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds that the proposals in the show cause notice pertaining to past and present shipments stemmed from investigation of a single shipping bill, comprising 76 packages, of December 2017 and the only ones available for evaluation of the appropriateness of code entered in the shipping bills on which 'scrips' had been issued. The shipping bills, pertaining to the live consignment as well as for the earlier consignments, were filed to enable assessment under section 17 of Customs Act, 1962 and, as pre-requisite for '51. Clearance of goods for exportation. - Where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for export are not prohibited goods and the exporter has paid the duty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....duty liability not having been discharged or of the goods being prohibited has no bearing for initiation of action under Customs Act, 1962. There is no allegation that notification under section 12 of Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force did prohibit export of 'zeolite' in any form. Confiscation of goods in the impugned order is without authority of law. 6. The case of the appellant for not rescinding 'scrips' for Rs. 71,54,100 issued, or against withholding of entitlement to 'scrips' for Rs. 2,57,166, under the 'merchandise exports from India scheme (MEIS)' of the Foreign Trade Policy rests upon the determination of eligibility solely by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and of relevance to the 'p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riate to the export goods than that corresponding to code 6815 9990 is not only comparison of incomparable but lacking authority of law inasmuch as the General Interpretative Rules appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which guide the emplacement of articles against respective headings and subheadings of tariff items, is specific not only to each Schedule exclusively but also restricted to such enumerations as are there in the Second Schedule to Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, as far as export goods is concerned there is no scope for applying either the Rules or the enumerations in the Schedules for disallowance of eligibility arising from consequence of goods exported that are not established as not conforming to description claimed in th....