2018 (4) TMI 5 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of value of export goods - DEPB Scheme - it was alleged that the goods which have been entered for export were not Steel Welding Electrodes, but were made of Mild Steel Electrodes - Held that - The adjudicating authority in the present case observed that the proceedings in the present case pertaining to the export of 149 shipping bills is on the basis of the earlier investigation in respect of 10 shipping bills - present impugned order has been passed also relying on substantially the same evidences which were covered in the earlier investigations, but we note that the earlier proceedings were concluded in favour of the assessee-Appellants in which the charge of mis-declaration has been set aside as well as the declared value of the goods stands accepted. Impugned order do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of value for availing undue DEPB credit.
2. Confiscation and reduction of value of exported goods.
3. Reliance on earlier investigations for present proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessee-Appellants appealing against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding mis-declaration of value for availing undue DEPB credit during the period 2008-09. The Special Investigation Branch alleged that the exported goods were not Steel Welding Electrodes as declared but Mild Steel Electrodes, leading to over-valuation. The earlier investigations resulted in confiscation and reduction of value to ?4 per piece from ?65 per piece. The present proceedings for 149 shipping bills were based on the same grounds as the earlier investigations.

2. The learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants argued that previous appeals allowed by the Tribunal and High Court had upheld the declared value of ?65 per piece, rendering the impugned order unsustainable. On the contrary, the Department justified the order, stating that each consignment covered by the 149 shipping bills was considered separately for adjudication. However, upon review, it was found that the earlier investigations had favored the assessee-Appellants, with both the Tribunal and High Court ruling in their favor, rejecting the mis-declaration allegations and approving the declared value of ?65 per piece.

3. The Tribunal observed that the present proceedings were a continuation of the earlier investigations by the Special Investigation Branch, which had already been decided in favor of the assessee-Appellants. The impugned order relied on the same evidence as the earlier proceedings, which had set aside the mis-declaration charges and accepted the declared value. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification to uphold the impugned order, leading to the setting aside of the order and allowing both appeals filed by the assessee-Appellants.