2016 (11) TMI 85 - AT - Customs

Overvaluation of goods - declared value of the goods exported as US 1750 & US 4700 for export of men s socks and men s briefs respectively, as against the value of US 875 and US 2350 respectively declared before the Dubai Customs Authorities - Held that - the FOB value declared by the appellant in respect of Men s shocks and Men s briefs works out in terms of ₹ 17/- per piece of briefs and ₹ 13.30 per pair of shocks. This fact is recorded by the adjudicating authority in his findings. These findings are not disputed by the lower authorities before the Commissioner (Appeals). The entire case of Revenue was that the appellant had raised another set of invoices, which indicate lower prices, hence there is overvaluation. We note that the adjudicating authority has clearly recorded the factual findings that no samples were drawn; no market enquiry was conducted to ascertain the PMV of the goods exported and investigation has also not revealed any overvaluation in respect of the past exports made by the exporter and that there are no contemporaneous export price of the same products. In our view, the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority are more factual than the findings recorded by the first appellate authority to set aside the Order-in-original. The impugned order does not reveal any reasoning for setting aside such a detailed order passed by the adjudicating authority, and hence set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Alleged overvaluation of goods cleared for export

The judgment involves an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the alleged overvaluation of goods cleared for export. The appellant had declared different values for men's socks and men's briefs for export compared to the values declared before Dubai Customs Authorities. The appellant argued that they declared prices higher than the purchase order, as instructed by the foreign buyer, and that the declared values were reasonable. The appellant also claimed that past exports at similar prices were considered genuine. The adjudicating authority accepted the declared values, but the first appellate authority set aside this decision, stating that the appellant's submissions were not thoroughly considered.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the FOB values declared by the appellant for men's socks and men's briefs were reasonable. The adjudicating authority's findings, which were not disputed by lower authorities, indicated that no samples were drawn, no market enquiry was conducted, and no overvaluation was found in past exports. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority did not provide sufficient reasoning for setting aside the adjudicating authority's detailed order. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, as the adjudicating authority's factual findings were more substantial than those of the first appellate authority, and the latter failed to provide adequate reasoning for overturning the original decision.