9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wback. The export consignment was put on hold and examined under Panchnama dated 27.07.2017. The samples were drawn and it appeared to them that the garments were of sub-standard quality and were highly overvalued. The export goods were seized by seizure memo dated 28.08.2017 but released provisionally for export on 27.09.2017 subject to the condition that the appellant submits a bond for the FOB value of the seized goods along with a bank guarantee for Rs. 11,30,000/-. The appellant executed the bond and bank guarantee and exported the goods. 4. The officers of DRI felt that transaction value declared by the exporter was liable to be rejected under rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 [Export Valuation Rules ] because there was reasonable doubt that the declared value did not represent the transaction value. They further felt that having rejected the transaction value of export goods under rule 8, it should be re-determined sequentially through rules 4 to 6. Their efforts to find goods of like kind and quality in the market were in vain because there were no such goods in the market and they were made exclusively for exports. Therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction value shall be deemed to have not been determined in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 3. 2) At the request of an exporter, the proper officer shall intimate the exporter in writing the ground for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the export goods by such exporter and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before taking a final decision under sub-rule (1). Explanation. (1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that- (1) This rule by itself does not provide a method for determination of value, it provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in cases where there is reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 6. (ii) The declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth or accuracy of the declared value after the said enquiry in consultation with the exporter. (iii) The proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the declared value based on certain reasons which may include - (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the first place, have some reason to doubt the truth and accuracy of the declared value. If he has such reason to doubt, he can call for further information and documents from the exporter and after examining them or if they are not provided, if the proper officer has a reasonable belief that transaction value was not true and accurate it can be rejected. Thus, in the first stage the threshold is that the proper officer has to have some reason of believe that the transaction value is not true and accurate where upon he call for information and documents and in the second stage what is required is the reasonable belief and only on such reasonable belief can the transaction value be rejected. 13. In this case the proper officer who deals with export had no doubt. The officers of DRI had some information that the goods were overvalued. Instead of passing the information to the proper officer, based on which he could have taken a decision, the officers of DRI examined the goods and formed an opinion that they were overvalued. Even their efforts to conduct a market enquiry were unsuccessful because there were no goods of like quality in the market. Nevertheless, they formed an opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f raw material, its purchase invoices, manufacturing cost (the job work charges etc) or the value realised from overseas buyers has been produced to substantiate the declared value. Although copies of BRCs have been submitted, they alone are not sufficient to establish bonafide of the Appellant, especially in light of above facts. The Appellant has miserably failed to counter the valuation done by the Department based on report of a local manufacturer. 5.5 There is no challenge to the fact that declaration made in Shipping Biils was not as per the goods contained in the container. There was difference of value. Thus confiscation under Section 113(1) of the Customs Act, which provides for confiscation of any goods entered for exportation which do not correspond in respect of value or in any material particular with the entry made under this Act (i.e. Shipping Bill) has been rightly ordered. Thus when goods have been confiscated under Section 113, the imposition of penalty under Section 114 (iii) is right. In fact for such penalty, no mens rea is required as held by Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Sunil Kumar Gilra vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exp.), Nhava Sheva [2019 (370) ELT 1553(Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he documents on record produced by the appellant in support of transaction value. We also do not find that any document was brought on record as evidence by the officers of DRI to raise a doubt regarding the transaction value in the shipping bill. Even when they conducted a market survey, it was clear that there were no similar goods in the market at all. It is surprising as to how based on some intelligence collected by the DRI officers and their subjective opinion the transaction value in the shipping bill was rejected under rule 8 by the Joint Commissioner. 18. What is more surprising is the Commissioner (Appeals) has "for brevity of the case", not repeated the entire facts of the case and went on to observe that the appellant has mis-declared the goods in respect of value. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had also produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) the bank realization certificates which were available by the time the matter was taken up for hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals) which showed that the remittances which they received were equal to the amounts indicated in the shipping bills as transaction values. The Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
