9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit forwarded the sample of shirt to export group for finalization of value for drawback purpose. It was found that shirts covered by the shipping bills were identical to the shirts covered by other two shipping bills No.100020804 dt. 4.2.1999 and 100020808 dt. 3.2.1999. Statements of suppliers of raw material recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962, wherein the price range of raw material such as fabric, buttons were revealed. The statement of partner of the appellant was also recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein the various details regarding the price of raw material, stitching charges, the cut off price declared by AEPC confirmed, accordingly on the basis of the details of raw material, stitching etc. the cost of each shirt was calculated as Rs. 241.70. As per market survey, the present market value of similar shirt was found to be Rs. 100/- per shirt as per cash memo No. 471 dt. 12.1.2000 of M/s. Surfarz Garements, Wadala. On the basis of above investigation, the show cause notice alleged that similar shirt is available in the market at Rs. 100/- per shirt. The appellant admittedly declared US$ 12.51 per shirt i.e. Rs. 530/- per shirt so as to be able ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962 for the purpose of export, value is not determined on the basis of cost construction method whereas the value is deemed to be the price at which export goods are offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of exportation in the course of international trade. In the present case the transaction value at which the goods were exported could not be found incorrect in as much as no issue such as money laundering , influence in the export price etc. was established. The only basis is the cost of the shirt comes to Rs. 241.70, therefore declared export price of the appellant was rejected. He submits that no statutory provision is available to arrive at deemed export price when the actual export price is available. He further submits that in the present case right from procurement of order, supply of goods and realization on payment the entire transaction is not under dispute. More over, the foreign buyer is based in USA, who also suffers substantial amounts of import duty approximately 20% in USA, therefore there cannot be a doubt on valuation of the shirts as the foreign buyer will not agree for the same as he has also to suffer the customs duty in his country. He fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 451 (Tri.-Mumbai) (iii) Akshay Exports & Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2003 (156) E.L.T. 268 (Tri.-Kolkata) (iv) Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs. Crown International 2006 (203 ) E.L.T 120 (v) Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Vs. Globe Entertainments 2016 (332) E.L.T. 38 (Bom.) (vi) Wescon Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC & CE, Goa 2007 (209 E.L.T. 371 (Tri.-Mumbai) (vii) Polynova Chemicals Industries Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2005 (179) E.L.T. 173 (Tri.-Mumbai.) (viii) Circular No. 74/2000-Cus. Dated 7.9.2000 (ix) Circular No. 77/2001-Cus. Dated 7.12.2001 (x) Circular No. 69/97-CUS Dated 8.12.97 He further submits that the adjudicating authority has imposed redemption fine of Rs. 75 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. The goods were exported and were not available therefore question of confiscation of non available goods and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation is not correct as held in various following judgments: (i) Mahalaxmi International Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2004 (169) E.L.T 68 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) Chinku Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta 199 (112) E.L.T. 400 (iii) Commissioner of Customs Vs. National Leather Cloth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son that as per market enquiry the price of the shirt was found to be Rs. 100/- whereas even on the costing basis the adjudicating authority arrived at Rs. 241.70 therefore the exercise of market enquiry became futile. It is also observed that since the export in the present case is regulated under a policy wherein a export quota is fixed for USA under which the entire detail of the export has to be disclosed to the concerned authority for obtaining the quota. For this reason also the declared price of the export cannot be doubted. There is a force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the export of shirts to USA attract customs duty of 20% in USA therefore even if any overvaluation is done the buyer has to suffer 20% levy of customs duty, therefore no wise buyer will agree for over valuation of the goods exported to US. On going through the Board s Circular which are relevant in the present case, we find that Board s Circular No. 74/2009-Cus. dt. 7.9.2009 clarifies as under: Circular No. 74/2000-Cus. dated 7-9-2000 F. No. 605/164/2000-DBK Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs Subject : Drawback PMV-verification at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
