9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shipping Bills no. 1012558, 1012559, 1012560, all dated 8.09.05 under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 were confiscated. Since the goods were not available for confiscation having been released provisionally the redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs only) in lieu of confiscation is imposed under Section 125(1) of the customs Act, 1962. Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,45,286/- was appropriated which was left after adjusting of excess benefit of Drawback and DEPB (shown at Sr. No. iii & iv of the order) from Bank Guarantee of Rs. 3.88 lac given by the notice for provisional release. (iii) Recovery of excess benefit of drawback amounting to Rs.1,13,821.00 in respect of Shipping Bill No. 1012558 claimed and received by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs. 4. Enquiry was made with 2 garment dealers of Amritsar Viz., (1) Gulsan Garments and (2) Arun Garments. While opinion of both the dealers on market value of goods were as under, appellant's claim was that Trousers were manufactured by them and T. Shirts were purchased at the price mentioned against each: Goods Maximum Retail Price revealed by Claim of Appellant Gulshan Garments Arun Garments Trouser Rs. 95 to Rs. 100 each Rs. 90 to Rs. 95 each Manufactured Boy's T Shirt Rs. 65 to Rs. 70 each Rs. 60 to Rs. 65 each Rs. 210 Gent's T Shirt Rs. 145 to Rs. 150 each Rs. 140 to Rs. 145 each Rs. 225 5. Result of market enquiry revealed that as against aggregate value of goods covered by the aforesaid 3 shipping bills decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Statement was also recorded from Sri Rakesh Kumar, (the other partner of the appellant) u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 09.05.2006. He stated that he looks after local deals and export deals were looked after by Sri Brij Mohan Bajaj, (the other partner) and he has no knowledge about the export deals. But he agreed to the statements given by Sri Brij Mohan stating that the same also be considered to having been given by him. 8. Statement of Sri Rajesh Sharma of M/s Sharmanji Fabrics Pvt. Ltd, Ludhiana who was stated to have supplied knitted fabrics to the appellant was examined u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 09.05.2006. He confirmed sale of raw materials by his employer to the appellant and confirmed delivery of goods as well as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... item referred in para-5 above) works out to be Rs. 7,48,800/-, Rs. 3,22,560/- and Rs. 9,50,400/- respectively and there is overvaluation to the tune of Rs. 33,58,930/-. (2) In the absence of any available record, M/s Pee Ar Exim failed to prove that the trousers covered by S/B No. 1012558 dated 8.9.2005 were manufactured by them from the knitted fabric purchased from M/s.Sharmanji Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (3) In the absence of any record accounting for receipts and disposal of goods claimed by the noticee as having been received from M/s. Adish Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana, they also failed to prove that the goods covered by Shipping Bill Numbers 1012559 and 1012560 both dated 08.09.2005 were the same goods r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Circular No. 27/2000-CUS dated 05.04.2000 Present Market Value (PMV) suggested by Revenue need not cause prejudice to the appellant for the value cap prescribed. So also it was submitted that where the maximum FOB value on which drawback or DEPB will be granted is notified along with DEPB rate, PMV will not be verified by the department. The value cap prescribed for T-shirts made of polyster was Rs.300/- per piece and value cap of Rs. 400/- was prescribed per piece of Trouser. Accordingly market enquiry result shall have no relevance. Further, export price was based on purchase value of goods and cost of manufacture and various other trade factors. Opinion of 2 (two) dealers gathered by Revenue has no basis since they were neither manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facility and the goods covered against the shipping bills were both manufactured and traded. There was no evidence on record from revenue to show that investigation resulted with observation of no manufacture while appellant producing copy of balance-sheet in the course of hearing says that there are machines for carrying out manufacture. Similarly the version of accountant Sri Rajesh Sharma of M/s Sharmanji Fabrics Pvt Ltd, Ludhiana (Ref: Para 11 of OIO) as to sale of fabric to the appellant, transportation thereof to the destination of appellant and payment by account payee cheque of the sales consideration of fabric remained un-discarded. Thus it is not possible to doubt manufacturing of the Trouser by the appellant. 15. Next question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
