Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 151 - AT - CustomsValuation of export goods - misdeclaration of Value - dyed and printed fabrics (Dupatta and Sarees) made out of 100% Polyester Filament Yarn/Texturised Yarn - It appeared to the department that the appellant had misdeclared the value by over-invoicing in order to get higher ineligible Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) benefit in contravention of Section 14 (1), Section 50 of the Customs Act and the provision of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 relating to DEPB scheme - The major grievance of the appellant concerns the method of which the CIU report for Present Market Value (PMV) of the export goods was determined and its veracity. Held that: - it emerges that appellant had not initially been given a copy of the CIU report and they had to obtain the same on 09.10.2006 after they made RTI application. Appellant also draws attention to further discrepancies in the CIU report stating that the description of the goods have been given as "sarees, blouses, skirts etc.", whereas the goods exported were "100% Polyester Fabric" - a doubt or suspicion on the correctness or otherwise of the import or export transaction will require to be supported by evidence and not on half baked information or reports, assumptions and presumptions. It is also well settled cardinal rule of law that if any documents are relied upon to allege an infraction or act or omission on the part of a noticee, copies of the same will definitely have to be provided to such noticee, to enable him to put forth his counter response to the same - In the instant case, the main edifice of the charge of overvaluation is the purported CIU report to ascertain the Present Market Values (PMV). By not supplying a copy of the same to the appellant during the adjudication proceedings, the latter have certainly been put to disadvantage - We are unable to find any reasoned and in-depth analysis of the contentions of the appellant nor is there any adequate discussion and reasoning while upholding the allegations against the appellant. The impugned order indeed suffers from lack of application, non-cognizance of submissions made by the appellant and peremptory dismissal of such contentions without any detailed reasoning - entire matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|