9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board's Review Order No. 153-R/2001, dated 26-7-2001. 2. It is seen that the Adjudicating Commissioner has recorded the following in the finding portion of his order :- "On 14-7-2000 Shri Vivek Talwar, Director of M/s Nitco Tiles Ltd. attended the personal hearing. He stated that exports under the two S/Bills were being made towards fulfilment of export obligation against EPCG Licence No. 01500322/1/13/10/1/01, dated 21-3-96 and that this fact was indicated on the S/Bills themselves. He also admitted that the declared value of US $ 650 per Sq. mtr. was very high and frankly conceded that the market value would not be more than US $ 100 to US $ 150 per Sq. mtr. The officers however have indicated that the market value may be around U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules 1993. Rule 11 ibid provides that an exporter shall state the correct value of the goods and Rule 14 ibid prohibits an exporter from employing a fraudulent practice while exporting goods. In respect of export of goods, where Rules 11 and 14 of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 are contravened the export is prohibited under Section 11(1) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Since, the export is thus prohibited the goods in respect of the two S/Bills become liable for confiscation under Section 113(d) and also Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, and I hold accordingly." 2. It is further seen that after giving a finding as above the Adjudicating Commissioner has confiscated the goods covered by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) to mean the value thereof determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14. Section 14 provides for valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment. In the case on hand, the wordings used in Section 114 are the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is greater. Sub-section (1) of Section 114 says that penalty would be not exceeding five times the value of the goods or Rs. 1,000/- whichever is greater. The value of the defrauded goods cannot replace the value of the dutiable goods and five times is certainly not referable to an altered fraudulent goods as sought to be made out by the petitioner. Any such argument, if accepted would result in defeating the very object of levy of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
