TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These market enquiry reports cannot be relied to discard the export value - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/1406, 1436/05 - Final Order Nos. A/85019-85020/2017-WZB/CB - Dated:- 27-12-2016 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri N.D. George, Advocate for the appellant Shri C. Singh, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per Raju Shriji Trading Company filed a shipping bill for export of readymade garments at declared price of USD 8.90/pc and USD 11/pc. The consignment was examined by the customs officers and nothing adverse was noticed. However later the same consignment was examined and detained by DRI on 08.10.2002. The exporter did not approach the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealers in Ready made Garments export Industry and written opinion dated 28.11.2002 the dealer opined that the whole sale value was as follows (i) Dyed PV.P/L embd Ladies maxi dress : ₹ 90/- per pc (ii) Dyed cotton woven P/L embd ladies maxi dress (Denim) : ₹ 250/- per pc 2. Commissioner adjudicated the matter and ordered confiscation of the live consignment and offered redemption on payment of fine of ₹ 2 lakhs. He also held that the drawback of ₹ 4,71,883.14 is recovered under Rule 16 of Customs And Central Excise Duty Drawback Rules, 1995 read with Section 75 of Customs Act, 1962. He also revised the declared value in case of two shipping bills filed under DEPB scheme. He also held that goods already e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri Gopal Krishnan Iyer had vide letter dated 20.11.2002 admitted that they have done overvaluation and misdeclared the value of export consignment. They had also waived the show-cause notice and requested for permission to ship the live consignment back to town. They had also pleaded for leniency in the shape of minimum fine and penalty. He argued that in view of these letters the so called affidavit of retraction do not hold much water. Copies of affidavit of retraction were not given to the investigating agency and produced for the first time on 27.02.2002 along with the reply to the show-cause notice. He asserted that the statement of Shri Jayesh Bhavsar were recorded on 22.10.2002 and of Shri Gopal Krishnan Iyer was recorded on 22.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record to show that the entire sale proceeds of the earlier export have not been brought back to the country or that the export FOB of similar goods was different at the material time. Mere admission of cenvat credit based on domestic market enquiry is not sufficient to discharge the obligation of revenue. Apex court in Om Prakash Bhatia 2003 (155) ELT 423 has observed as follows:- 19. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dave submitted? that in some cases, exporter may get much higher value of the goods than the market price prevailing in the country and therefore, merely because higher export value is mentioned, it cannot be inferred that it is not the true sale consideration. In some cases, this hypothetical contention may be right. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
