2022 (1) TMI 1140 - AT - Customs

Valuation of export goods - confectionary spare parts - rejection of declared value - redetermination of value for the purpose of claiming export benefit - old and used goods or not - Hawala transactions or not - HELD THAT - Although in the show cause notice, the description of exported machine is old and used and there is no allegation in the show cause in respect of description of goods. Therefore, the argument of ld.AR is not sustainable. Only issue is alleged in the show cause notice with regard to the value of export consignment. In the impugned order, there are no whisper about value when the appellant has received the total value of export consignment and there is no allegation that they have received payment through Hawala from the buyer and from the overseas, in that circumstance, how the value of export consignment be rejected. Shri Anil Kumar Soni, chartered engineer estimated the value of goods of ₹ 55,00,000/- and the value was not accepted by the competent authority and the competent authority again referred the matter to another chartered engineer, who gave the report that the value of goods is ₹ 43,00,000/- and the competent authority is not satisfied with the report and referred the matter to another chartered engineer, who opined that estimated value of export goods is ₹ 38 lakhs. There is no huge difference amongst the three values supplied by the 3 different chartered engineers. On this ground alone, the value arrived by the chartered engineer is to be rejected - No other evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue with regard to the value of export consignment. In that circumstance, the value of export consignment cannot be rejected. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of declared value of export goods and re-determination for claiming export benefit.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of the declared value of export goods in the impugned order. The facts of the case revealed that the appellant filed shipping bills describing the goods as confectionary spare parts with a declared FOB value of &8377; 83,54,500/-. Subsequently, the declared value was deemed on the higher side during examination, leading to the detention of the goods. Chartered Engineers provided varying opinions on the value of the goods, with estimates ranging from &8377; 55 lakh to &8377; 38 lakhs. Based on these reports, the appellant was accused of mis-declaring the value of the export consignment. A show cause notice was issued for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The competent authority re-determined the value of the goods at &8377; 38,00,000/-, leading to the appellant's appeal.

The appellant argued that they had received the total value of the export consignment, which was not disputed by the Revenue. They contended that the contradictory reports of the Chartered Engineers regarding the value of the goods should not be acceptable, especially when no other valuation method was adopted. Therefore, the value determined by the adjudicating authority should be rejected. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the detailed report provided by one of the Chartered Engineers was acceptable, and the adjudicating authority rightly upheld the value of the old and used export goods declared by the appellant.

After hearing both parties and examining the show cause notice, the Tribunal found that there was no allegation regarding the description of the goods in the notice, only concerning the value of the export consignment. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the reports of the Chartered Engineers but observed that the differences in the estimated values were not significant. No additional evidence was presented by the Revenue to support the rejection of the declared value. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the value of the export consignment could not be rejected solely based on the Chartered Engineers' reports. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.