TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 177
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication No.104/94-Cus. dated 16.03.1994 upon execution of a continuity bond of Rs.25 crores. On the allegation that proof of re-export had not been furnished in respect of 6163 containers, the Department issued the Show Cause Notice dated 27.07.2021 proposing recovery of duty, confiscation and penalties. The original adjudicating authority has reduced the disputed containers to 4020 and confirmed duty, interest, confiscation and penalty, whereupon the Commissioner (Appeals), vide Order-in-Appeal dated 24.10.2024, remanded the matter for fresh consideration. In the de novo proceedings, after noticing duplicate entries and other discrepancies, duty of Rs.3,92,28,576/- along with interest was confirmed in respect of 3886 containers (as against 6163 containers originally noted as not re-exported), redemption fine of Rs.1,37,00,000/- and penalty of Rs.40,00,000/- were imposed, which came to be upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 24.09.2025, leading to the present appeal. 3. The Ld. Advocates Shri Stebin Mathew and Shri Rohit Singh appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire proceedings rest upon the erroneous assumption that the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tended that despite repeated opportunities and exclusion of containers in respect of which re-export was established, the appellant failed to satisfactorily prove compliance with the conditions of the Notification in respect of the remaining containers and, therefore, the adjudicating authority was justified in confirming the demand and in imposing consequential liabilities. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and perused the appeal records, the Show Cause Notice, the Orders-in-Original, the impugned Order-in-Appeal, the vessel-wise container details, the judicial precedents relied upon by both sides and the other documents placed on record. Upon such consideration, the following questions arise for determination: - i. Whether violation of Notification No.104/94-Cus. stands established? ii. Whether the impugned demand, confiscation and penalties have been confirmed on the basis of adequate verification and examination of evidence? 6. We now proceed to examine the above issues sequentially. Issue No. (i): Whether violation of Notification No.104/94Cus. stands established? 7. We note that Notification No.104/9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudicating authority. These figures themselves demonstrate that the controversy is essentially one of proper verification and comprehensive reconciliation rather than one involving established non-reexport. 11. We also note the appellant's contention that certain containers were exported through ports other than Chennai and, therefore, terminal-generated vessel-wise records contemplated under Public Notice No.84/2004 may not be available in the same form. In such cases, the adjudicating authority shall examine alternative export evidence such as Shipping Bills, EGM particulars, vessel details and LEO records before arriving at any conclusion. 12. The Department cannot deny exemption under Notification No.104/94-Cus. merely because a container appears in a departmental compilation as non exported. It is required to establish, through proper verification, that the particular container was imported under the notification, was not re-exported within the prescribed or extended period and thereby violated the conditions of exemption. In the absence of a comprehensive container-wise verification of the evidence produced by the appellant, including the reconciliation materials d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mongst other details are available. *Appellants are not in possession of vessel wise list of containers generated by Terminal bearing Preventive Officer's (Terminal) stamp in compliance with Public Notice 84/2004 as these containers have been exported from Ports other than Chennai Port. 40 4 Appellants are in the process of obtaining co-relatable data which they may please be permitted to be placed before the Original Authority if a de-novo adjudication is allowed. 250 Total Number of Containers 3886 Thus, the additional reconciliation statement filed before this Tribunal indicates that the appellant has produced verifiable export particulars in respect of a substantial majority of the containers forming the subject matter of the demand. Once such material is available, the adjudicating authority is required to undertake container-wise verification and record specific findings thereon. Confirmation of duty without such verification would defeat the very purpose of the earlier remand ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals). 16. In these circumstances, we are unable to hold that the impugned demand, confiscation and penalties have been ....