9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the shipping bills and the weight per piece of collar of M.S. sheet (700 gms and 370 gms), the number of pieces declared in the shipping bills and claimed to have been exported were far in excess of those actually exported and therefore show cause notice was issued to the appellants denying excess DEPB already availed in respect of two shipping bills and to limit DEPB in respect of 13 remaining shipping bills on the basis of number of pieces actually exported. 2. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Advocate submits that in 12 out 15 shipping bills, containers were opened and examined and remaining 3 were allowed after inspection. Once the goods were examined and found the Customs Authorities to tally in description, weight, etc., the departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he payment of freight was made on volume basis and not on weight basis and therefore correctness of freight paid by them cannot be questioned once it was not paid on weight basis. 3. The learned SDR on the other hand submits that as per original weight declared, the cost per kg of finished goods worked out to Rs. 5,192/- per kg as against Rs. 370 to Rs. 430 per kg determined on the basis of marketing enquiry done on the basis representative sample drawn at the time of export. This obviously shows that the number of pieces declared to have been exported was much more than the one actually exported and when the appellants became aware of this fact they got amendment certificate after over one year from the date of export, which was clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive sample drawn at the time of export. Only defence of the appellants is that the total net weight and gross weight declared by them was incorrect and was accordingly got amended by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of documents and therefore the number of pieces exported cannot be disputed, once amendment certificate has been issued after due verification. We find that the appellants in their plea have taken a stand that the goods were examined by opening 12 out of 15 containers and were found to be correct by the Customs Authorities and therefore cannot be disputed now. However, while taking this stand, they concede that there was error in declaring weight and to that extent they impliedly admitted that verification of total gross we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipping bills and not on amended weight which was 6 to 15 times more than the declared weight. The shipping agents have also stated that they charge freight on volume basis when weight as compared to volume is low, otherwise on weight basis. Since freight has been charged on volume basis, it is evident that the weight was less. In view of above, we uphold the finding of the Commissioner that amendment certificate has to be discarded and actual number of sets has to be determined by dividing net weight by the weight of one set of collar of M.S. sheet which is 700 gms and 350 gms as the case may be. 5. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order limiting the benefit of DEPB based on number of sets arrived on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
