TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m under DEEC scheme. The Electrode were made of mild steel and silicon and other alloys which would render better than conventional welding. They received orders from buyers in Dubai and got the goods manufactured from M/s. Fair Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. the samples of goods were tested by them and their buyers, between 7-9-1999 and 10-9-1999, they sought to export 4698 gross (676512 pieces) under 10 Shipping Bills which are the subject matter of the present proceedings. Sample of the goods were drawn by Customs Authorities and goods were provisionally allowed to be exported. The Department did not make the final assessments; the appellants filed a petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta which directed Revenue to adjudicate expeditiously. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and determined at Rs. 4/- per piece, personal penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs each on Kanhaiya Exports Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors, Shri Sudhir Satnaliwala under Section 14 along with the penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs each on the Directors of M/s. Fair Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. was arrived. Hence the present appeal. 3.After hearing the material on record it is found :- (a) Full amount as per declared FOB values have been received and the appellant have submitted evidence to that effect before the ld. Commissioner, no rebuttal of this proposition was shown to us as records detailed of payment received. (b) The foreign buyers is not related to the appellants, price is negotiated price, no part of the amounts of the benefit have been alleged or flowi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o call for and uphold the confiscation. The reliances on Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 662 (Tri.-Mumbai) by the appellants is well founded to set aside the confiscation orders arrived at in this case. No confiscation penalty could be arrived at on overvaluation for claiming higher DEPB relying on the decision of Suresh Jhunjhunwala v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs., Hyderabad, 2005 (183) E.L.T. 60 (Tri-Mumbai). 5.The jurisdiction of Customs Authority to sit over the decision in the , case of DEPB is not upheld in the case of Suresh Enterprises, 2005 (179) E.L.T. 466. We also rely on the decision in the case of Ramayan Impex v. Commissioner of Customs (exports) Nhava Sheva, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
