9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... printed polyester fabrics of inferior quality. The samples drawn from consignments covered by two out of the eight shipping bills were found on test to be not 100% polyester fabric. The weight per sq.m of fabrics covered by six shipping bills was found to be around 50 gms. Market enquiries revealed that none of the consignments conformed to the declaration as regards value. As against the declared unit price Rs. 183/- per yard, enquires revealed the unit price of similar fabrics in the local market to be within Rs. 25/- to Rs. 30/- per metre. 2. In his statement dated 6-7-2006 Shri Sanjeev Choudhary, proprietor of M/s. Asha Enterprises, stated that the price of the impugned fabrics was Rs. 50 to 55/- per metre. The officers found that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent. The allegation of recording statement under duress from Shri Sanjeev Choudhary was not established. The market enquiries had revealed that the present market value of identical goods were Rs. 25/- to Rs. 30/- per metre as against Rs. 183/- per yard declared. Therefore, the export goods were over valued to obtain a DEPB credit of Rs. 22,80,322/- whereas the admissible credit was only Rs. 3,46,203/- considering the FOB value as Rs. 30/- per metre. On a finding of over invoicing the export goods and misdeclaring the description of the goods, the Commissioner passed the following order after due process of law. (1) Fixed the value of the export goods at Rs. 51,88,500/- as against the declared Rs. 3,14,92,763.50 in the shipping bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.-LB.), it was held that overvaluation of export goods was not an offence under the Act. Only two consignments were allegedly not of 100% polyester fabrics. Asha had purchased the goods from the market. Asha had not violated any provisions of the Act. Several judicial authorities were cited in support of the legal pleas. 5. Before us during hearing, the ld. Counsel for the appellants reiterated the following grounds taken in the appeal. (i) The Commissioner had relied on the test results of a sample which was drawn in the absence of the appellants. (ii) The method of sampling was not known. (iii) The market value claimed to be ranging from Rs. 25 to Rs. 30/- per metre was a fiction. (iv) The appellant was not aware of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a representative of the exporter. Therefore, the Commissioner could not legally use the results of a test conducted at the back of the exporter to draw findings adverse to him. Therefore, the finding of the export fabrics being inferior in quality and not conforming to the declared description has not been validly made in the impugned order. 8. As regards the finding of misdeclaration of value, we find that the Commissioner had used results of market enquiry for the purpose. However, the details of the enquiry such as the persons contacted, whether they dealt with similar fabrics and the results were not intimated to the appellant. Information gathered at the back of the exporter cannot be used to penalize him in adjudication. In the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
