9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Export of shirts under the Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) scheme with declared values. 2. Confiscation of shirts based on alleged inflated market value. 3. Liability to confiscation under Section 113 of the Act. 4. Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade Regulation Rules 1993. 5. Value determination of exported goods. 6. Reliance on expert opinions for valuation. 7. Discrepancies in evidence regarding fabric supply and value determination. 8. Appeal decision to set aside confiscation and penalty, remanding for fresh valuation. 9. Export permission post-appeal decision. Analysis: 1. The case involved the export of shirts under the DEPB scheme with declared values for three consignments. The appellant claimed DEPB benefits based on the f.o.b. values declared for men's and women's shirts. 2. The department alleged that the declared market values were inflated, leading to a proposal for confiscation of the shirts and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner's order confirmed the inflated values and ordered confiscation, along with penalties. 3. The issue of liability to confiscation under Section 113 was raised, with the appellant arguing that there was no prohibition on the export of the goods. The department contended that misdeclaration of value contravened Rule 11 of the Foreign Trade Regulation Rules 1993. 4. The interpretation of Rule 11 was crucial, as it required exporters to declare values accurately. The appellant challenged the department's argument that misdeclaration of value constituted a prohibition or restriction under the Act. 5. The valuation of the exported goods was contested, with expert opinions from Krishna Sharma and Dinesh Saraff being pivotal. Discrepancies in their statements and evidence raised doubts about the accuracy of the valuation. 6. The reliance on expert opinions for valuation was questioned, especially regarding the methodology used by Sharma to estimate values based on subjective factors like smell. The need for a fair and reasonable valuation method was emphasized. 7. Discrepancies in evidence regarding fabric supply and valuation were noted, affecting the department's reliance on the sale price of the fabric for determining the value of the shirts. 8. The appeal decision set aside the confiscation and penalties, remanding the case for a fresh valuation of the shirts to determine the DEPB credit available to the appellant accurately. 9. Post-appeal decision, permission for export was discussed, emphasizing the need for accurate valuation and compliance with export laws to avoid delays in repatriation of foreign exchange. Representative samples were ordered to be drawn for future reference.
|
