TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods and after recording a finding that they were not correctly valued re-determine the value, but this was not done. This mistake has been noticed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned order which may call for any interference in this appeal - appeal dismissed. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51810 OF 2021 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51225/2022 - Dated:- 16-12-2022 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri V. Saharan, Authorized Representative for the Department Shri Devesh Tripathi, Ms. Anjali Gupta and Shri Faraz Anees, Advocates for the Respondent Shri Alok Tripathi, Prasanjit Pathak, Consultant for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal has been filed by the Department to assail the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) [ the Commissioner (Appeals)] by which the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the declared value of the goods in the 4 shipping bills and redetermining the same has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. 2. M/s Zoom Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [ the respondent] filed 4 shipping bills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gards first issue i.e. to re-determine the FOB value of the export goods for drawback purpose, I am taking lower mean reported value per piece of the items i.e. Polyester fancy long scarves with tikli and latkan Polyester fancy long scarves with Embroidery work @ Rs. 280/- as determined during market enquiry conducted by the department. The Authorized Representative of the exporter vide his statement dated 24.01.2018 has agreed to accept the value re-determined by the department. Therefore, by taking lower mean reported value per piece of the items i.e. Polyester fancy long scarves with tikli and latkan Polyester fancy long scarves with Embroidery work @ Rs. 280/-, the drawback admissible to the exporter is Rs. 14,48,832.00 only as per annexure-I of the para no. 8 above. 14. I have observed that it is established beyond doubt that the export goods valued at Rs. 1,87,14,328.00 covered under the impugned Shipping Bills No. 7435442, 7435369, 7435433 7435418 all dated 18.07.2017 were over-valued by the exporter with an intent to avail higher Drawback. The Authorized Representative of the exporter in his statement dated 24.01.2018 agreed to accept the value of export go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have reasonable doubt, the goods are cleared on the declared value. (e) When the doubt persists, sub-rule (1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. (f) The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy of the declared value on certain reasons‟ which could include the grounds specified in clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. (g) The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the imported goods. Thus, the proper officer has to record reasons in writing which have to be communicated when requested. (h) The importer has to be given opportunity of hearing before the proper officer finally decides the transactional value in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. These guidelines are squarely applicable to Rule 8 of CVR 2007. ***** Thus rejection of declared value and redetermination of value of export goods has to be a two steps process. In light of this background, I proceed to examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not supply the invoices under which the impugned goods were purchased. The Appellant has produced purchase invoices showing the purchase price ranging from Rs.339/piece to Rs.341/piece. Further it is noted that Rule 4 of CVR 2007 requires comparison with transaction value of goods of like kind and quality exported at or about the same time to other buyers in same country of destination. Thus purchase invoices of the Appellant were not relevant for application of Rule 4 of CVR 2007. There is no detail in impugned order as to why Rule 4 of CVR 2007 was not applied and why Rule 6 (Residual method) was applied directly. Thus adoption of market enquiry under Rule 6 without discussing about non-feasibility of application of Rule 4 is legally untenable. 5.6.3 It is also the case of the Appellant that they have realised entire sale proceeds in respect of impugned goods and the overseas buyer has remitted the declared value. The impugned order has not challenged the declared value on any ground other than market enquiry. There is no allegation of any hawala transactions or flow back of money from the Appellant to overseas buyers to establish that declared value was not true transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
