9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of drawback on export of Rotomac Ball Pens to Russia, excessive export price, mis-declaration of value, violation of principles of natural justice, provisional export clearance, market enquiry, lack of document disclosure, violation of Foreign Trade Act and Customs Act, penalties imposed, re-adjudication of the case. Analysis: The issues in these appeals revolve around the drawback claimed by the exporter on the export of Rotomac Ball Pens to Russia. The exporter had stated the price of each pen as Rs. 8.12, based on which drawback was claimed. However, upon investigation, it was found that the actual retail and wholesale prices of the pens were significantly lower at Rs. 4.30 and Rs. 1.97 per pen respectively. This discrepancy led to penalties being imposed on the exporters for mis-declaration of value, a violation of the prohibitions under Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, punishable under Section 113 of the Customs Act. The main argument presented by the appellant's counsel focused on the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice. It was contended that the Department failed to provide the necessary documents despite specific requests, and the officer who heard the exporters did not pass the orders before relinquishing charge. The appellant sought a fresh hearing by the new officer, but the original officer ante-dated the order to create an impression of compliance. The counsel argued that the orders were passed in violation of natural justice principles due to procedural irregularities. The case involved the provisional export clearance of Rotomac Ball Pens to Russia under two sets of export documents in March 1997. The Department conducted inquiries into the actual value of the pens after doubts arose regarding the stated export price. However, crucial documents related to market enquiry and exports to Baharin were not disclosed to the exporters. The orders were passed without providing the exporters with a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, as essential information and examination outcomes were not shared, leading to a lack of due process. In light of the procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice principles, the appellate tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed that the issue be re-adjudicated by the concerned officer within four months. It was emphasized that all evidence against the exporter must be disclosed to enable effective representation. The penalty amount deposited was to remain until the final order was passed, ensuring a fair and transparent re-evaluation of the case within the specified timeframe.
|
