2008 (4) TMI 118 - AT - Customs

Allegation of overvaluation of quantity of a consignment exported - On basis of Srilankan Custom s documents DEPB credit was denied held that Photocopies of documents of uncertain origin cannot be relied on in adjudication proceedings no evidence of overvaluation - held that Commissioner of Customs is not competent to curtail the DEPB credit allowed by the DGFT - Export value of consignments assessed and cleared for export cannot be revised much after export

Summary

Issues:
Allegation of overvaluation and misdeclaration of quantity in export consignment. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs to modify DEPB credit. Reliability of documents from Srilankan Customs. Validity of demand for DEPB credit and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The case involved an adjudication of overvaluation and misdeclaration of quantity in an export consignment to Srilanka by M/s. Trustworth Enterprises, Chennai (TEC). The Commissioner of Customs penalized TEC for overvaluing Stainless Steel utensils and cutlery and declaring excess quantity in the consignment. The issue centered around the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to modify DEPB credit allowed by DGFT, the reliability of documents from Srilankan Customs, and the validity of the demand for DEPB credit and penalty imposition.

The appellant argued that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to modify DEPB credit and that there was no basis to revise the export value declared in the shipping bills. They contended that the value and weight of the consignments had been verified by Customs appraisers, and the evidence relied on by the Commissioner, photocopies of import declarations, was unauthenticated and suspect. The appellant also highlighted discrepancies in the allegations and charges leveled against them.

The respondent, represented by the ld. SDR, supported the impugned order, citing official documents from Srilankan Customs as evidence. However, the Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments. They concluded that the Commissioner lacked the authority to curtail DEPB credit, and there was insufficient evidence to prove overvaluation. The reliance on unauthenticated documents was deemed unacceptable for adjudication purposes.

The Tribunal further emphasized that the exporter had received sale proceeds as per the declarations in the Shipping Bills through banking channels, indicating no wrongdoing in payment. They also clarified that the demand for DEPB credit and penalty imposition lacked a legal basis without concrete evidence. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal filed by Trustworth Enterprises, Chennai, was allowed.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of jurisdiction over DEPB credit modification, reliance on unauthenticated documents, and the validity of demands for DEPB credit and penalties. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the allegations and the absence of legal grounds for the demands made by the Commissioner of Customs.