Judgment:
2. Notice issued to the appellant demanded duty of Rs. 1,03,001/-on goods which had been manufactured by it and removed under bond for export, on the ground that proof for export had not been furnished. The Assistant Commissioner, after having seen the document that the assessee produced, was satisfied that the export had taken place and dropped the proceedings.
3. The department appealed this order to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the copy of the shipping bill which had been produced before the Assistant Commissioner had not been attested by the exporter or the authorised person, as required in the Circular No.527/2/2000-CX., dated 1-5-2000 of the Board. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this ground and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Hence this appeal by the assessee.
4. The circular in question noted that, in accordance with the earlier circulars, one of the documents showing export was attested copies/photocopy of the shipping bill, and noted that considerable difficulty was caused to the exporters by the insistence of Customs authorities to abide by the requirement that the Customs authorities at the place of export should attest these copies. It said after examination, "It has been decided by the Board that the requisite copy of the Shipping Bill will be self-attested by the exporter or his authorised person clearly indicating the name of the person signing/attesting and his designation." If the object of the circular is thus only to establish who has attested the copy, that object can well equally be served by attesting the copy now. The departmental authorities appear to have lost sight of the fact that the circular of the Board was issued in order to remove difficulties that were faced by the exporters who are not intended to face one more hurdle.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
We however leave it to the department to initiate proceedings under law, if its enquiries show that the goods have not been exported.