9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to M/s. H.N.D. Kapur Textiles Ltd., Cheshire, SK 5 7NB, U.K. declaring the value as Rs. 22,38,251.36, Rs. 22,38,251.36, Rs. 22,38,251.36 and 32,77,439.50 respectively. The Shipping Bills were noted in Export Department on 25-6-1993. The goods were examined by the officers of the Appraising Docks and E.I.B. and were found to be Mulberry Silk Printed Ties. Representative samples were drawn and sealed in the presence of the appellant firm 3. During the course of enquiry, a doubt was entertained on the declared value of these export products. It is the case of the Department that the representative samples were shown to M/s. Mohan's, New Market, Calcutta-87 and M/s. Handloom House, Calcutta-87. On inspection, they certified that similar Mulberry Silk Printed Ties were available in the local market @ Rs. 100.00 and 102.10 per piece. Thus it is the case of the Department that taking Rs. 102.10 on the higher side as per the above market prices collected, the total market price of the goods exported by the appellants would work out to Rs. 2,28,704.00 against the declared F.O.B. value of Rs. 22,38,251.36 each with reference to the three consignments as mentioned above under DEEF No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, 1962. These certificates furnished by M/s. Handloom House and M/s. Mohan's Tailors & Men's Wear read as follows : "To 27-9-1994 Appraiser, Export Investigation Branch, 15/l, Strand Road, Custom House, Calcutta. Dear Sir, In response to your letter No. S41/18/93/EIB, dated 27-9-1994 I have seen the sample of Silk Ties which is approximately to our knowledge should be about Rs. 100.00 per pc. in retail. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- For Mohan's" "To The Appraiser, &e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion did not deal with that aspect. In this case, the exported goods are not dutiable ones. In the above-cited decision at para 16 the Tribunal held as follows :- "...The mode of valuation prescribed in Section 14 of Customs Act is applicable whenever a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value....". After discussing this aspect, further in para 16 the Tribunal in the last sentence held as follows :- " . . . Hence, for the above-said reasons, the Collector 's conclusion that the rigours of Section 14 on valuation are not in terms applicable to the present case where the goods exported are not subject to any levy of duty at all, calls for no interference so far as this aspect of the case is concerned. " 11. It is, thus, clear that this aspect was considered by the Tribunal in the light of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bird & Co. v. K.K. Sengupta reported in 1988 ( 37 ) E.L.T. 70 . It is thus clear that the method adopted by the Department in arriving at the value as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 is also not applicable, since the goods in this case are not subjected to any levy of duty. On that ground, the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. - The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation : (a)....... ............... .......... ............. (m) [any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular] with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Sec. 77 in respect thereof : . . . .....". It is thus seen that under Section 111(m) any goods without any qualification are liable for confiscation if they do not correspond to any value or any other particulars being the Entry made under the Act. But under Section 113(i) only dutiable or prohibited goods or goods entered for exportation under a claim for drawback, and if they do not correspond in any material particulars to the Entry made under this Act including the Entry under Section 50 of the Customs Act, are liable for confiscation. The present goods do not answer to any of the above descriptions. Therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. 14. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue cannot be taken as the value for Customs purposes...". A perusal of the above goes to show that it is admitted even in the impugned order that they have realised the full export value. If they have realised the full export value then it is not known as to how that value cannot be accepted. Again in the findings portion at Page No. 6 of the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority observed as follows : "........It appeared from records of the case that the exporter had realised the full foreign exchange remittance back through the proper legal channels as declared by them as the export value for the subject export consignments." 16. It is, therefore, clear that whatever value the appellants had declared as export value, was realised by them in full foreign exchange remittance through the proper legal channels. If that is so, we fail to understand as to how the appellants can be penalised when they have realised the full foreign exchange remittance back through the proper legal channels which value they had declared to the Customs Authorities. It is also not discussed in the impugned order as to what was the advantage which they had obtained in view of this declaration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
