2000 (4) TMI 397 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods for misdeclaration and discrepancies in quantity during export.
2. Application of Customs Act provisions regarding valuation and confiscation.
3. Interpretation of regulations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
4. Consideration of case laws in determining violations and confiscation.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order-in-original confiscating goods for discrepancies in quantity during export. The Commissioner of Customs had confiscated the goods and allowed redemption upon payment of fines and duties. The appellant, a 100% EOU, disputed the findings of the stock-taking conducted by DRI and requested a re-stock taking by a technical inspection agency. The re-inspection revealed a different set of items in excess of what was accounted for, which were imported earlier for job work processing. The appellant argued that since there was no sale involved, the valuation should not have been based on invoice value. The appellant also cited a Calcutta High Court decision to support their case.

2. The Advocate contended that the valuation should have been done under Customs Valuation rules due to the absence of a sale transaction. The Commissioner's reliance on invoice value was deemed a misapplication of law. Additionally, the Commissioner did not consider all the decisions submitted regarding the misdeclaration of quantity rendering goods as prohibited for export. The Tribunal found these errors in the order-in-original and set it aside for de novo consideration by the original authority.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that misdeclaration of quantity made the export of goods prohibited under the Customs Act and referred to regulations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The DR highlighted a notification prohibiting export unless accompanied by a declaration with prescribed evidence. The Commissioner's findings distinguishing the High Court decision from the present case were also noted.

4. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner erred in not applying Customs Valuation rules due to the absence of a sale transaction and in not considering all relevant decisions submitted. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a fully speaking order after hearing all submissions and case laws. The Commissioner was directed to expedite proceedings since the goods were not yet redeemed. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellants in the new proceedings.