2008 (12) TMI 156 - AT - Customs

DEPB overvaluation of export goods to claim export benefits confiscation of goods appellant consistently confessed to having overvalued the goods for claiming undue DEPB benefit and even produced documentary evidence of Present Market Value (PMV) a reference Circular of CBEC wherein the procedure for determining PMV of export goods was clarified is not acceptable since the appellants themselves produced evidence of PMV cases produced by the appellants are supporting the department s case - confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty upheld

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged overvaluation of goods for DEPB benefit leading to confiscation, fine, and penalties.
2. Confiscation and penalties imposed on a separate case of similar nature.
3. Challenge to Commissioner's decision based on value enhancement and legal precedents.
4. Appellants' confession of offense and argument against the Commissioner's decision.
5. Comparison of legal precedents and justification for upholding the Commissioner's decision.

Issue 1: Alleged overvaluation of goods for DEPB benefit leading to confiscation, fine, and penalties:
The case involved M/s. Asian Exports filing shipping bills for metallic/non-metallic writing instruments, claiming DEPB benefit. Suspecting overvaluation, the department detained the consignments and found discrepancies. A partner admitted overvaluation and extra DEPB credit claimed. The Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed penalties on the partners.

Issue 2: Confiscation and penalties imposed on a separate case of similar nature:
In a separate order, goods covered by a shipping bill from M/s. Asian Trade International were confiscated with a fine imposed in lieu of confiscation and penalties on the exporter. The grounds and facts of this case were similar to those of M/s. Asian Exports.

Issue 3: Challenge to Commissioner's decision based on value enhancement and legal precedents:
The appellants challenged the Commissioner's decision, arguing against the enhancement of goods' value based on an invoice produced for expediting shipment. They cited legal precedents and circulars to support their case, claiming no misdeclaration of value as realized through normal banking channels.

Issue 4: Appellants' confession of offense and argument against the Commissioner's decision:
The appellants admitted the offense of overvaluation for DEPB benefit but contested the Commissioner's decision, stating no coercion in producing adverse evidence. The Tribunal found no valid grounds in the appeals, upholding the Commissioner's decision due to voluntary admission of overvaluation and intent to gain undue benefit.

Issue 5: Comparison of legal precedents and justification for upholding the Commissioner's decision:
The Tribunal compared legal precedents cited by both sides, noting the appellants' consistent confession of overvaluation. It distinguished cited cases where no clear confession was made. The Tribunal found the appellants' case worse due to their admission and production of evidence, justifying the Commissioner's decision based on established overvaluation for DEPB benefit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal sustained the Commissioner's orders, dismissing the appeals based on the established overvaluation of goods for DEPB benefit, voluntary admission of offense, and comparison with relevant legal precedents.