Payal Synthetics Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that DGFT notification no. 26/2015-20 dated 21.08.2018 restricts export of Garnet irrespective of its origin. Customs tariff doesn’t distinguish between ‘Garnet found on beach’ and ‘Garnet found in inland places’. Accordingly, confiscation of export goods uphold and penalty imposed.
Facts- M/s. Payal Synthetics Pvt. Limited, Surat filed two shipping bills dated 18.01.2019 for export of 140MT & 138MT of “Natural Abrasive” classifying the same under Customs Tariff Heading 2513 2090. The department observed that the DGFT vide Notification No. 26/2015-20 dated 21.08.2018 has amended export policy of ‘Beach Sand Minerals’ (BSM) in Chapter 26 of Schedule 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items.
The Customs department therefore, issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellant on 07.01.2021 alleging that the exporter has filed false and erroneous declaration in respect of export items which were prohibited as per DGFT Notification No. 26/2015-20 dated 21.08.2018 and thus, export of prohibited goods becomes an act tantamount to smuggling as defined u/s. 2(39) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Adjudicating Authority held that the goods are ‘Natural Garnet’ and confirmed classification of the subject goods under CTH 2513 2030, confiscated the goods which were provisionally exported vide two shipping bills and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation besides imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant each u/s. 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Commissioner (A) upheld the order of Additional Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
