9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority, after observing that the export goods were over-valued by the exporter with an intent to avail higher drawback, observed that the declared value of the goods attempted to be exported should, therefore, should be rejected under rule 8 of the 2007 Valuation Rules. The adjudicating authority had to first examine the correctness of the declared value of the export goods and after recording a finding that they were not correctly valued re-determine the value, but this was not done. This mistake has been noticed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. Appeal dismissed. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50265 OF 2022 - FINAL ORDER NO.51224/2022 - Dated:- 16-12-2022 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for export provisionally on 22.09.2017 after furnishing a Bond of Rs. 7,12,01,559/- and a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 23,49,000/-. 3. The Department conducted a market enquiry under rule 6 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 [ the 2007 Valuation Rules ]. The FOB and duty drawback amount was re-determined on the basis of lower mean value obtained from the market enquiry. On the basis of market enquiry report, the applicable drawback amount of the impugned shipping bills was calculated to be Rs. 47,25,638/- and the FOB value as Rs. 5,58,80,800/-. 4. The adjudicating authority, by an order dated 12.03.2018, re-assessed the declared FOB to Rs. 5,58,80,800/- under rule 6 of the 2007 Valuation Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porter is Rs. 47,25,638/- only as per Annexure-I of the para no. 13 above. 19.2 I have observed that it had been established beyond doubt that the export goods valued at Rs. 7,12,01,559/- covered under the impugned Shipping Bills No. 8511586, 8511588, 8511589, 8511597, 8511602, 8511671, 8511674, 8512350, 8512420, 8512425, 8512426, 8512463, 8512481 all dated 07.09.2017 were over-valued by the exporter with an intent to avail higher Drawback. The exporter in his statement dated 12.03.2018 accepted the value of export goods as re-determined by the department for the drawback purpose. 19.3 The declared FOB value of the goods attempted to be exported , vide Shipping Bills No. 8511586, 8511588, 8511589, 8511597, 8511602, 8511671, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le doubt as to the transactional value on account of truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the imported goods. (b) Proper officer must ask the importer of such goods further information which may include documents or evidence; (c) On receiving such information or in the absence of response from the importer, the proper officer has to apply his mind and decide whether or not reasonable doubt as to the truth or accuracy of the value so declared persists. (d) When the proper officer does not have reasonable doubt, the goods are cleared on the declared value. (e) When the doubt persists, sub-rule (1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order repeatedly refers to acceptance of the Appellant for reducing the value based on market enquiry. 5.5.2 It is thus evident that no cogent reasons existed when doubts about correctness of the declared value of the export goods were raised. There was no misdeclaration in respect of description, quality, quantity etc. except to the extent that sizes of Polyester Fancy Big Hand Bag with shoulder strap were not indicated. No significant variation in value at which goods of like kind and quality were exported at the same time in comparable quantities etc. was established as no contemporaneous exports have been cited to reject the declared value. Further the difference in declared value lower mean value of market value established ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red value under Rule 8 of CVR was not proper legal. ***** 5.6.3 Thus redetermination of declared value solely on ground of market enquiry is not proper and legal and declared value need to be accepted as correct. (emphasis supplied) 6. Ms. Jaya Kumari, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department, submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside. In this connection, learned authorized representative submitted that the adjudicating authority had correctly rejected the transaction the value and re-determined the transaction value of the export goods for the purposes of drawback and for this purpose learned authorized representative placed the order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
