TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... views on the same. To that extent, we find that the order seems to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. - No contemporary value on identical or similar goods were brought on record in order to ascertain the contemporaneous prices of the goods sought to be exported. In the absence of above, we find that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in respect of M/s. Ruchika International and their partners. - Matter remanded back. There is no abetment on the part of officers inasmuch as all the shipping bills were signed after examining the documents which were attached. The shipping bills and the documents attached and produced before these three departmental officers were indicating the prices, which they felt were correct in the facts of these cases and being recently posted may have lacked in training in clearance of export goods; even otherwise, the only violation which was highlighted in the impugned order was these officers have indicated that they have drawn the samples and maintained the records, but in fact they have not done so; for the charge of abetme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir report dated 31/07/2006 stated that the PMV of the product was ₹ 96/- per meter and it was noticed by the departmental officers that the FOB value as declared in the shipping bill by the exporter was ₹ 284/- per meter. Thorough investigation was undertaken and the documents relating to the earlier exports made by M/s. Ruchika International were scrutinized and the samples, which were drawn by the earlier authorities were called for. It was noticed that no samples were drawn. After recording various statements, Revenue issued a show-cause notice to M/s. Ruchika International for wrongful claim of DEPB benefits on fifty shipping bills. The departmental officers were also issued show-cause notice for imposition of penalties under the provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. All the appellants herein contested the show-cause notice on merits and also on limitation. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the comments raised and held against M/s. Ruchika International, its partners and also against the three departmental officers. The DEPB credit, which was allowed to the appellant, M/s. Ruchika International was reduced, penalties were imposed on all oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main issue and the entire findings of the adjudicating authority is based on an overseas inquiry, which allegedly revealed that Fob value declared in the shipping bill by almost ten times higher than the declared value in the bill of entry. He would submit that the inquiry report was not given to the appellants but two charts C-1 C-2 (Annexure to page No. 122 of paper book), which was prepared in India by the officers were given. It is his submission that overseas inquiry information cannot be considered as documents in terms of Section 139C of the Customs Act, 1962. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has neither determined the value inasmuch the adjudicating authority has rejected the value declared by the appellant, but did not determine the value based upon identical or similar goods, being exported from India. It is his submission that one of the findings is that the appellant had submitted forged BRCs for getting the DEPB for which he would submit that this forgery was done by the consultant. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority was aware of the similar goods were exported at or around same price by the appellant located in various jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds have no place in the current proceedings. They would submit that the CBEC's Circular No. 10/97-Cus dated 17/04/1997 puts no condition of samples drawing and further Customs Notice No. 75/2001 dated 22/06/2001 puts only optional condition of sample's drawing for all kinds of exports. It is his submission that there are no short or non compliance on the question of sample's drawing as per CBEC Circular. It is his submission that the fact of non-drawl of samples cannot be attributed to charge of collusion and connivance; when the fraud, if any, is attributed to exporter and is totally separate and distinguishable on the facts. They would rely upon the judgements of the Tribunal in the case of Sunshine Overseas vide Final order No. A/1152-1166/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 16/08/2010, set aside the penalties imposed on the departmental officers. They relied upon the following decisions: a) CC, New Delhi Vs. MI Khan - 2000 (120) ELT 542 (T) b) CC CE, Hyderabad Vs. Rajiv Kmar Agarwal - 2007 (217) ELT 392 (T) c) GH Industries Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 1997 (94) ELT 483 (T) 5. Learned Special Counsel Shri V.K. Singh after giving the overall picture submit that the modus operan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6.3 Secondly, we find that the samples which were drawn by the departmental authorities on the consignments which was intercepted and sent to BTRA, the queries were regarding the technical description of the samples whether they would fall under the category of textile and textile articles; but it seems BTRA had opined that the goods are particular description and additional information as to the correct ex-factory value was also given. At this stage, we have to record that goods sought to be exported were suit length and valuation as declared by the appellant was ₹ 284/- per meter, while the department has worked out the value of ₹ 23/- per meter for DEPB benefits. How this value is worked out is not forthcoming from the records. We also find that the adjudicating authority has not redetermined the value based upon any acceptable norms as per the Customs Act. It is also to be recorded that identical consignments of textile articles was exported by the same M/s. Ruchika International and the value declared was accepted by the department in order-in-original dated 31/12/2009, which we were informed was not contes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
