TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (9) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. A113 held as under: "The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar on 4-12-2003 after condoning the delay, dismissed the Review Petition (C) No. 1626 of 2003 in Civil Appeal No. 4230 of 2001 filed by Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai against the CEGAT Order No. 2774/2000 -WZB, dated 18-8-2000 and reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 819 (Tri.) (Prayag; Exporters Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner). While dismissing the review petition, the Supreme Court passed the following order :- "Delay condoned. We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers. In our view no case is made o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DEPB) Scheme. Shri Suresh Jhunjhunwala is uncle of Shri Sachin Jhunjhunwala who is director of M/s. Ganesh Yarntex Export Pvt. Ltd. and father of Shri Deepak Jhunjhunwala, proprietor of Aadee Exports and imports. The cargo covered by the shipping bills was to be loaded in the vessel at Chennai Harbour. The officers of DRI, Chennai, intercepted the consignment and examined the same under Mahazar dated 24-1-2001 and found that the goods were Ladies Nightwear garments which were found to be small, uneven, unshaped garments which cannot be worn by any person of any age. Representative samples were drawn for further investigation. On 24-2-2001, identical goods brought from Mumbai for export were also seized by the officers of DRI from a godown a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the issue involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by the above judgments, he emphatically and forcefully submitted that this is a fit case for grant of complete waiver and the appeals need to be allowed at the stay stage itself. The ld. DR appearing for the revenue objected to dispose of the appeals at the stay stage itself referring to certain internal directions issued by the CDR. The Bench pointed out that since the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the appellant, there is no question of keeping the appeal pending as the same could be conveniently disposed of at the stay stage itself and there is no reason to keep them pending in view of the settled legal position. Thus the Bench has overruled the objection rai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the statements of Shri Suresh Jhunjhunwala and Deepak Jhunjhunwala were retracted. Thus, he claimed that there is no evidence to support the allegation and the findings of the ld. Commissioner that the export goods are over invoiced. He further submitted that that the goods seized from the godown on 24-2-2001 could not be liable to confiscation as no shipping bill was filed and the goods were nowhere near the customs area so as to constitute attempt to export. He further submitted that there is no nexus between the goods purchased by the appellant and those seized during the investigation to support the findings of the ld. Commissioner that the appellant, Shri Suresh Jhunjhunwala has purchased cheap goods. Therefore, he prayed for allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by highly overvaluing the same. She has also held that by mis-declaring the description and value in the shipping bills and filing wrong declaration the exporter has contravened Rule 11 of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 and as the condition subject to which the goods were allowed to be exported but are not complied with the subject goods are prohibited goods in terms of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962. She has also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia. Accordingly, she has denied the DEPB and held the goods liable to confiscation and imposed penalties. We find that the case of Prayag Exporters Pvt. Ltd. was also overvaluation of export goods for the purpose of claiming higher DEPB. The Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d also not be imposable. Therefore, we hold that the export goods covered under 11 shipping bills are not liable to confiscation under Section 113(d), (h) and (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequently the appellants are not liable to penalty under Section 114(i) of the said Act. We further observe that Section 113 was amended with effect from 14-5-2003 deleting the word "dutiable or prohibited". Section 113(i) was amended making any goods entered for exportation which did not correspond in respect of value or any material particulars with the entry made under the exports Act liable to confiscation. Thus for the first time with effect from 14-5-03 this amendment has been made which supports our findings that prior to 14-5-2003 for overva....