9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Rule 4 and Rule 5 before fixing the value under Rule 6 ibid. Circular No. 07/2003-Cus., dated 05.02.2003 F. No. 605/147/2002-DBK was issued on the subject of admissibility of drawback and market verification for ascertaining the present market value of export goods under Drawback. This Circular gives the methodology to be adopted in cases of over-valuation of goods for export and there is no mention of constitution of any Valuation Committee. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. WOODERN STYLE PLUS EXPORTS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI [ 2018 (7) TMI 709 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein an identical goods of over valuation of export goods based on the price fixed by the Valuation Committee was involved has held Apart from the report of the Valuation Committee, there is no other evidence to show over-valuation of the cargo. Even the status of the Valuation Committee does not stand disclosed i.e., as to who were the members of the said Committee, how they arrived at the value?; what was the basis of the findings? and what was the technical and expert qualification of the said members? - impugned orders are not sustainable. The above decision has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.24,69,333/- under claim for duty drawback of Rs.1,44,551/-. It appears that the appellant filed fresh shipping bill Nos. 7758554 and 7758286 both dated 27.02.2012 for the very same consignments with a revised value of Rs.8,26,715/- under the claim of duty drawback of Rs.67,264/- when it was realized that their representative had committed a mistake by wrongly declaring the values mentioned in earlier export documents. 2.2 On entertaining a suspicion that the cargo was overvalued, the export goods were detained by the SIIB and the samples were drawn for testing. It appears that the appellant had submitted cost construction statement for each of the items covered in the above two shipping bills, duly certified by a Chartered Accountant, with a request to release for export these goods as the foreign buyer was insisting on dispatch of the goods. The goods were allowed provisionally by the Revenue as the value declared by the appellant in the revised shipping bill appeared to be reasonable and in line with the cost construction certificate submitted. 2.3 However, drawback due was withheld till finalization of the valuation issue and the samples drawn were sent to the Valuation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8654845, 8654852 and 8654864 all dated 26.04.2012 with revised lower value of Rs.22,23,609/- (FOB) with drawback claim of Rs.1,85,646/-. 3.2 The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 43/2012 dated 04.10.2012 has rejected the declared value based on the Valuation Committee report and re-determined the value as Rs.14,60,721/- under Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules and restricted the drawback claim to the re-determined value. On adjudication by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vide Order-in-Original No. 43/2012 dated 04.10.2012, the goods were held liable for confiscation who also imposed a redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 114 (iii) of Customs Act, 1962. Further, the Bank Guarantee No. 34838 dated 23.04.2012 executed for Rs.2,00,000/- at the time of provisional release for export was appropriated towards redemption fine imposed and a part of the penalty. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Trichirapalli, who rejected the appeals by the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 15 16/2013 dated 21.02.2003. Aggr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of the said Valuation Committee fixing the price for the export goods has not been provided to the appellant; the adjudicating authority has merely relied on such price fixed by the Valuation Committee, the basis for such fixation is not informed to the appellant and there is no evidence to show that the value of the exported goods is overvalued. 5.5 The learned Advocate has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Woodern Style Plus Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli reported in 2019 (370) ELT 778 (Tri. -Chennai) and the decision in the case of M/s. Abhishek Exports India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin reported in 2018 (9) TMI 1673 (CESTAT - Chennai) which decided an identical issue of over valuation on the basis of price fixed by Valuation Committee, the demand confirmed and the order was set aside by the Tribunal and appeal was allowed with consequential relief. 5.6 He prayed for the rejection and redetermination of value, restriction of duty drawback to such re-determined value, imposition of redemption fine and penalty may be set aside and for allowing the appeal with consequential relief including s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Woodern Style Plus Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli reported in 2019 (370) ELT 778 (Tri. -Chennai) wherein an identical goods of over valuation of export goods based on the price fixed by the Valuation Committee was involved has held as follows:- 6. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant also drawn our attention to the allegation made in the show cause notice, which is exclusively on the basis of a report of Valuation Committee of the Department. He submits that there is virtually no evidence on record to show the over-valuation. However, the status of such Valuation Committee along with the expertise of the members does not stand disclosed by the revenue and as such, the Committee in question cannot be held to be an opinion of expert person. Further, the Committee has not given any reasons as to why the value declared by the assessee is not to be accepted. As such, he submits that the Revenue has proceeded without there being any evidence to rebutt the value declared by assessee. In such a scenario, he prays for setting aside the redemption fine and penalty. 7. The Learned Authorised Representative appearing for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 dated 04.10.2012, the redemption fine imposed is reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and the penalty imposed is reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). For better clarity, the revised redemption fines and penalties are captured in the table given below: - OIO No. Dt. OIA No. Dt. Redemption Fine Imposed Earlier (in Rs.) Revised Redemption Fine (in Rs.) Penalty Imposed Earlier (in Rs.) Revised Penalty (in Rs.) 39/2012 dt 13.09.2012 15 16/2013 dt. 21.02.2013 1,50,000/- 50,000/- 1,50,000/- 50,000/- 43/2012 dt 04.10.2012 1,00,000/- 50,000/- 2,00,000/- 50,000/- 13. In view of the above reasons, we order to set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal Nos. 15 16/2013 dated 21.02.2013 with consequential relief, if any, and partially allow the appeals, as indicated above. ( Order pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
