Per S.S. Kang :

The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs. five lakhs under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed shipping bills at Air Cargo Customs, New Delhi for export of readymade garments declaring the FOB value of Rs. 62,89,884.48 with the claim under Draw back scheme. On the declared FOB value, the amount of draw back is of Rs. 9,12,033.00. On examination of the goods, it was found that the readymade garments under export were sub-standard and export surplus. Some of the garments were of knitted fabrics which were not entitled for any drawback. After conducting the market enquiry, it was found that the total value of the goods was only Rs. 7,23,080/- which is less than the amount of draw back claimed by the appellant.

3. The adjudicating authority denied the draw back and confiscated the goods. The penalty on the appellant was imposed.

4. The contention of the appellant is that they are not exporter of the goods. Their name is used by the employee of CHA or some other persons to get a drawback. The appellant submitted that they were not challenging the denial of drawback or the confiscation of goods as the same were not exported by them. The appellants are not exporter of the goods, therefore, they are not liable for penalty.

5. The contention of the revenue is that the remittance of the goods export and the amount of drawback are to be credited to the bank account which are in the name of the appellant, therefore, appellant is the ultimate beneficiary. The contention of the revenue is also that IEC number of the appellant were on the export document, therefore, appellant cannot say that he is not exporter of the goods.

6. We find that the appellant is not challenging the denial of drawback or confiscation of the goods. The only challenge in the appeal is regarding imposition of penalty. The contention of the appellant is that they are not exporter of the goods in question nor any shipping bill is filed by them. It is the employee of CHA who tried to export the goods.

7. We find that the drawback amount and the remittance of the sale proceedings were to be credited to the bank account which are in the name of the appellant. Further we find that IEC No. of the appellant were on the export document. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.