Futan Leathers Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that imposition of redemption fine and penalties when goods were provisionally released, reprocessed and exported after re-processing is unjustified and hence liable to be set aside.
Facts- The appellants filed shipping bills for the export of an item declared as “Goat shoe suede pure finished leather” through Customs House Agent (CHA) M/s. Kalki Shipping Associates. On examination it was seen that the consignments in respect of Shri ALM Leather Exports and M/s. Futan Leathers did not conform to the standards of finished leather. Samples were drawn and sent for testing to CLRI, Chennai. The report was received stating that the goods did not fulfil the standard of finished leather as per public notice no.21/2009/14 dated 1/12/2009 for the reason that the processes of dyeing and shaving/snuffing had not been done. The appellants thereafter got provisional release of the goods, and after reprocessing the goods were exported.
The department issued the present Show Cause Notice alleging the attempted export of prohibited goods and proposing to confiscate the goods, to impose redemption file and penalties. After due process of law, the original authority held that as the goods which were unfinished leather were attempted to be exported as finished leather, the goods were liable for confiscation. As goods were already provisionally released and re-exported after reprocessing, the adjudicating authority imposed redemption fines and penalties.
Conclusion- Held that the goods were provisionally released, reprocessed and exported. Thus the goods are not available for confiscation at the time of passing the order by the adjudicating authority. In a similar situation, when the goods were exported after re-processing, in the case of Vijayalakshmi Leathers Vs. CC, Chennai it was held that the imposition of redemption fine and penalties are required to be set aside.
In the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. Airport Chennai Vs. Avanti Leathers Ltd. 2010 (261) ELT 491 Tribunal, Chennai, the issue was similar whether the department held the goods to be unfinished leather for the reason of absence of protective coating. The goods were provisionally released. The exporter reprocessed the goods and exported the same. It was held that the confiscation and imposition of penalties are not warranted.
Held that the goods have been provisionally released, re-processed and exported, we are of the considered view, that the confiscation of the goods is not warranted and justified. Accordingly, the redemption fine imposed is also to be set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
1. Brief facts are that the appellants viz; M/s. ALM Leather Exports, M/s .Futan Leather and M/s. Avanthi Leathers exports (herein after referred to as appellants) filed shipping bills dated 26/3/2012 and 27/3/2012 for export of item declared as “Goat shoe suede pure finished leather” through CHA M/s. Kalki Shipping Associates. The details of the shipping bills are as under.
