SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
G. JAYACHANDRAN, R.SAKTHIVEL, JJ. 
Commissioner of Customs (Port-Export)  - Appellant
Versus
M/s APP Enterprises – Respondent
C.M.A.Nos.1224 to 1227 of 2010
Decided On : 29-04-2026 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s Rajnish Pathiyil
For the Respondent: Ms.Dhanamadhiri for M/s T.Shanmugam, Tribunal

Tribunal's order perverse for ignoring deliberate wrong export scheme code to evade scrutiny, suppression, and notification violations; failed to distinguish inadvertent error from wilful act; original order disallowing duty exemption restored.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 130, 28(2), 111(d), 111(o), 112(a), 125 - Notification No.32/97 dated 01/04/1997 - Duty-free import for job work to produce export product - Conditions include import for supplier's export order, re-export within six months, wastage disposal as per norms, no sale/transfer, jobbing per 1996 Rules - Importer used wrong scheme code (99 instead of 20) in shipping bills deliberately to evade EDI scrutiny - Tribunal held revenue failed to prove non-destruction of waste and non-use for intended purpose despite documentary export evidence - Tribunal's order perverse for superficial examination, ignoring wilful suppression and motive, treating error as inadvertent - Order-in-original disallowing exemption, recovering duty Rs.71,72,187/-, enforcing bank guarantees, confiscating goods (redemption fine Rs.10,00,000/-), penalties Rs.5,00,000/- on firm and Rs.3,00,000/- each on partners restored. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 23)

(B) Customs Notification Compliance - Onus on department to prove non-compliance with wastage destruction permission - But overwhelming evidence of violations like overpricing export product, false waste claim, discrepant invoices, wrong scheme code overrides; tribunal erred in not considering these. (Paras 16, 22)

Facts of the case:
Importer firm imported raw material duty-free under notification for conversion into product for re-export to supplier, but allegedly diverted for local use. Investigation revealed wrong scheme code in exports, suppression. Show cause notice, order-in-original adverse to importer. Tribunal allowed importer appeals, dismissed revenue appeal citing waste destruction permission and export evidence. Revenue appealed to High Court.

Findings of Court:
Wrong scheme code deliberately chosen to avoid scrutiny, no single correct code produced, indicating motive. Importer explanations lacked credence. Tribunal's reversal unsustainable, order-in-original proper.

Issues: Whether onus on department to prove non-acting on waste destruction permission; whether wrong scheme code mere inadvertent mistake or wilful suppression; perversity of tribunal order ignoring investigation materials.

Ratio Decidendi: Tribunal's order perverse for ignoring clear findings on deliberate wrong declaration enabling evasion, superficially accepting importer defence without examining show cause notice vs. order-in-original; perpetual wrong coding not inadvertent. (Paras 21, 23)

Result: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals allowed; impugned CESTAT final orders set aside; order-in-original restored.

Table of Content
1. duty-free job work imports require export obligation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. suspected diversion triggers investigation, duty recovery. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. cestat quashes oio for insufficient non-compliance proof. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. revenue appeals cestat on onus of proof. (Para 11 , 12)
5. wrong scheme code evidences willful suppression. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. importer claims compliance, inadvertent code error. (Para 17)
7. tribunal order perverse; restore oio findings. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
8. revenue appeals allowed, oio upheld. (Para 24)

JUDGMENT :

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1.M/s APP Enterprises, having its registered office at Delhi is a partnership firm run by Mr.Vinod Agarwal and Mr. Dwarka Parsad Parekh as its partners. At its factory in Haryana for conversion of ‘Areca nuts/Betel nuts’ into ‘Betel nut Tannin’ as a job work imported huge quantity of areca nuts/betel nuts from their foreign supplier M/s P.T. Ganpathi Trading Indonesia. It declared that on conversion into ‘Betel Nuts Tannin’, same will be exported to the supplier at Indonesia and availed the duty free concession under the notification No: 32/97 dated 01/04/1997.

2. As per the Customs Department Notification No: 32/97, to avail the concession, the importer has to ensure the following conditions:-

“(i)that the goods are imported for execution of an export order placed on the importer by the supplier of the goods for jobbing.

(ii)that the goods so imported, including resultant products, are re-exported to the supplier of the goods or to any other person which the said supplier may specify within six months, provided that the wastage arising during the process of jobbing, as determined in terms of SION norms published vide P.N.No.2(P.N)/1997-2002 and to where such SION norms for resultant product have not been published, the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise shall be disposed off in the manner as may be specified by them.

(iii)that the goods are utilized only for the discharge of export obligation and no part there of shall be sold, loaned, transferred or otherwise used or disposed of.

(iv)that the jobbing is undertaken in accordance with the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of goods at Concessional rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules 1996.”

3. Based on information and reasonable belief that the areca nut/betel nut imported were diverted for manufacturing Pan Masala/ Gutka for local consumption instead for the job work and export of ‘Betel Nuts Tanning’ in contravention of the notification condition (iii) read above, SIIB Chennai Customs took up the matter for investigation of the past imports.

4. While that investigation was under process fresh consignment of about 1500 MT of betel nuts, arrived at the Chennai Port claiming it as covered under job work order dated 25/10/2005. When the Bills of Entry filed for clearance, the Commissioner of Customs (imports) ordered to release the Cargo provisionally, pending finalisation of investigation on executing 25% Bank Guarantee for the differential duty and P.D.Bond. The importers challenged the said order filing writ petition before the High Court. In respect of the 6 bills of entry as directed by the High Court, show cause notice issued on 12/03/2007 to the importers namely, M/s APP Enterprises and its partners, calling upon them to explain as to why the duty exemption granted under Notification 32/97 not be disallowed and demand and recover duty along with other consequential action under Sections 111(d) , 111(o) and 112(a) of the Customs Act,1962. The importerst replied to the show cause notice on 20/03/2007. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport–Export) Chennai passed the Order in Original on 05/03/2008 by concluding that the have no doubt that a careful modus-operandi was devised wilfully and intentionally to defraud the Government of its legitimate dues. For the failure to fulfil the export obliga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top