2015 (1) TMI 1253 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Over-valuation of FOB thereof to make undue claim of DEPB - export of watch - whether customs has jurisdiction to question FOB value declared in respect of export of past and live consignments and such declarations whether were correct or liable to be reduced by Customs. - whether cost construction method followed by Revenue to determine FOB value of the exports is proper or the method of valuation prescribed by Valuation Rules of 1988.

Held that:- FOB of the watches covered by past and live consignments were overvalued on the grounds hereinafter dealt elaborately. Only one-tenth of such values were declared to Dubai and Hong Kong Customs which remained unrebutted. -Revenue discharged its burden of proof making allegation of mis-declaration relying on evidence gathered from abroad and also basing on various other contributory factors as well as on the basis of remittance came from Hong Kong to Dubai and reduction of declared value before Hong Kong Customs upon detection by them. Added to that, claim of use of gold in making watch components received low weightage by test results of the Government recognized laboratory.

Contention of Revenue as to mis-declaration of FOB was established when the appellant M/s. Roche Watches changed its stand on cost of manufacture of watches filing three cost statement on three different dates, i.e., on 31-8-2004, 10-9-2004 and 24-9-2004. Repeated revision of such statements gives rise to the inference that the records of the appellants were not reliable and certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant was false.

Misdeclaration of the value of export to Indian Customs was patent from remittance of lower consideration in respect of the goods exported by the appellant M/s. Roche Watches to Dubai and such goods exported therefrom to Hong Kong which remained unrebutted leading cogent evidence to the contrary by appellant. Therefore, even such factor contributes to the inference that higher export value came to India while the past export goods did not command such higher value corroborated by appellant’s own conduct of declaration of lower value upon detection by Hong Kong Customs.

Extended period of limitation - A case of overvaluation should not be sanctioned on the plea of time bar. Therefore, such a plea is rejected. It was also the contention of the appellant that there cannot be market enquiry beyond certain period prescribed by the Board’s circular. Present case is a case where value of the export is to be determined in accordance with Valuation Rules, 1988 and that has been directed by this order to be carried.

Misdeclaration of the value established - matter remanded back for the aspect of determination of valuation - Decided against the appellants.