9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the exporter for availing the benefit under the DEEC Scheme. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises, Calcutta exported three consignments of the said goods under three Shipping Bills, all dated 17-1-1996, against Value based Advance Licence No. P/K 2284575/Cal, dated 31-3-1995 and DEEC Book No. 158227/CAL, dated 31-3-1995 claiming DEEC benefit at a declared FOB value of Rs. 1,70,50,300/-. On a reasonable belief that the said declared value was on higher side, the Customs allowed the export subject to furnishing of PD bond and subject to the condition that the DEEC benefit would accrue only on finalisation of export value after investigation. Enquiries with M/s. Shankar Plastics, Calcutta, revealed that the cos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 162/- as against Rs. 1,70,55,300/- declared by the appellants. He observed that the overvaluation amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs (approximately) was resorted to by the appellants in order to get some additional incentive of duty free clearance under the Value Based Advance Licensing Scheme. He, however, took note of the fact that foreign exchange was realised for the full value and, therefore, did not impose any penalty on the appellants. He ordered that the benefit under the DEEC Scheme shall be restricted to the value fixed by him. The said decision was communicated to the appellants vide the order impugned before us. 3. Shri Aftab Ahmed, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants, assails the impugned order on the ground that the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest, margin of profit. As against this, we have examined the method and manner of calculation as explained by the ld. Advocate during the course of personal hearing. But he did not adduce any documentary evidence in respect of cost of production of the exported goods and other expenses. In the absence of any evidence such as certificate of a Chartered Accountant etc., the plea of the ld. Advocate cannot be accepted. The ld. Advocate's plea that the valuation done by the Customs authorities is not in keeping with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not merit acceptance inasmuch as the provisions of Section 14 ibid., are not applicable to export goods. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the method and manner of fixation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
