2015 (2) TMI 376 - AT - Customs

Entitlement of entitled for DEPB benefit at declared export price - export of Man Made Filament Yarn with or without embroidery and made ups - overvaluation - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order totally unaware of the facts and figures involved in the case as pointed out by the Revenue. His finding that there was no significant difference between the maximum market price of ₹ 80 per yard and export price of ₹ 102 per yard was based on the imaginary figures as the actual figures involved in the present matter are market price of ₹ 20-22 per metre and FOB value of ₹ 132 per metre. The FOB value was discovered by the Revenue through market enquiry. It is also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order based on the wrong facts and figures. Obviously when he was unmindful of the correct facts and figures, he could not appreciate the context of applicability of judgement quoted by the Revenue and the respondents/exporters. As consequence, it would be inappropriate for us as final fact finding authority to base our decision on Order-in-Appeal which does not take into account the facts involved, the extant of law, value of exported goods, administrative guidelines on the issue of applicability of judgement quoted by both sides. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/Cus/ICD/D-II/55/08 and Order-in-Appeal No. CC(A)/Cus/ICD/D-II/54/08
- Entitlement for DEPB benefit at declared export price
- Discrepancy in FOB value declared by exporter and present market value
- Allegations of overvaluation and misdeclaration of export goods
- Interpretation of relevant legal judgments and circulars
- Application of Customs Valuation Rules 2007 for determining export price
- Consideration of market price prevailing in the country for DEPB benefits
- Remand of the matter for reconsideration by the lower appellate authority

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal, challenging the entitlement of the assessee for DEPB benefit at the declared export price. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original and held in favor of the assessee, stating discrepancies in the FOB value declared by the exporter and the present market value.

2. The case involved two shipping bills filed for export under the DEPB scheme, where market enquiry revealed overvaluation by the appellants. The Adjudicating authority determined correct market prices lower than the declared values, leading to allegations of attempting to avail excess DEPB benefit.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that the export value had been realized, emphasizing the independence of the foreign buyer and citing relevant tribunal and Supreme Court judgments supporting the genuineness of the declared value.

4. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner's findings were not based on proper appreciation of facts, highlighting significant discrepancies in declared FOB values and market prices, indicating overvaluation for DEPB benefits.

5. Reference was made to various judgments and circulars, emphasizing the need to consider market prices for DEPB benefits and prevent unintended benefits due to overvaluation of export goods.

6. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration, citing the casual manner in which the order was passed without proper consideration of facts and figures, directing a fresh decision based on correct information and applicable legal provisions.

7. The decision to remand the case for a reevaluation by the lower appellate authority aimed to ensure a fair adjudication process, considering the correct facts, relevant legal principles, and administrative guidelines for the implementation of the law, providing both parties with an opportunity to present their case anew.