9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Alleged overvaluation of garments for export leading to excessive drawback claim.
Analysis: 1. The appellant exported garments under a claim for drawback, which was contested by the Department due to alleged overvaluation of the shirts. The Department issued a notice proposing to deny drawback, confiscate the shirts, and impose penalties on the exporter and its director and proprietor. The Department's valuation was based on market enquiries conducted by its officers, valuing each shirt at Rs. 49.24 compared to the claimed value of Rs. 466. The Commissioner determined the FOB value to be Rs. 300 and instructed payment of drawback based on this value, leading to the appeal. 2. The Commissioner accepted that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Act. He acknowledged that the statements regarding the cost of the shirts provided by the director and manager of the exporting firm were not sufficient to prove undervaluation. The Commissioner recognized the challenges in comparing prices of export goods like shirts, especially considering the full declared export value had been realized. He highlighted the difficulty in determining the exact price and acknowledged the tendency of exporters to overvalue goods, suggesting a fair value of Rs. 300 per piece for garments under the DEPB scheme. 3. Despite the Commissioner's acceptance of the evidence and lack of proof of undervaluation, he determined the value of the goods to be between Rs. 250 to Rs. 300 based on his subjective assessment of the quality of the goods. The appellant argued that the Commissioner's valuation was arbitrary and irrational, emphasizing that the declared value should be accepted for calculating the drawback. The Commissioner's reliance on the DEPB scheme's limit of Rs. 300 was deemed erroneous, as it did not apply to drawback calculations, which are based on the FOB value of the goods. 4. The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the need for calculating drawback based on the correct value of the exported goods. The tribunal agreed with the appellant that the Commissioner's subjective valuation was not justified, especially when there was no established undervaluation by the Department. The decision highlighted the importance of accepting the declared value for calculating the drawback owed to the appellant.
|
