9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and Bill of Exports, the Appellant has been able to get the full realization from the overseas importer, in foreign currency and the same has been converted into Indian rupees by the receiving bank in India. The very fact that the overseas importer has accepted the value cited by the Appellant in the invoices and has honored the payment and has made the full payment, would show that he does not treat that the value of the imported consignment as inflated or overvalued. The data towards the purchase rate of such fabric in India has been provided by the Appellant to be at Rs. 85 to 95 per Meter in India. The Department has not made any effort to verify as to what was the purchase price in India for such fabric. The Department contends that the sale value was inflated by about 330%. For this, they should have checked what is the price of such fabric in India. If the figures of Rs.85 to 95 per meter as given by the Appellant towards the purchase is taken, the same would have the value of about USD 2 at that point of time. When the sale price of USD 2 or 2.10 is considered, there are no over valuation. As per the present calculation of the Department, the sale price should be l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant has taken undue benefit of obtaining excess valued DEPB Licence from the DGFT, the Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant and other co-noticees. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands and penalties. Being aggrieved, the Appellants are before the Tribunal. 3. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the rate of synthetic fabric was valued at US$ 2 2.10 per meter when the exports took place during December 2009 and February 2010. He submits that in respect of all the 12 export consignments, the Appellants have received the export proceedings through the bank. The BRC Certificates issued by the bank were also submitted before the Adjudicating Authority. This proves that whatever value was taken by the Appellant in the Invoices was also approved by the buyer, who has made the payments for such export invoices. The Appellants have produced copies of the purchase documents during the relevant period to show that the purchase price at that time was about Rs. 85 to 95 per metre in the Indian Market. He submits that the exports were made after issuance of Let export order issued by the Customs officials and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere submitted to the Department. 5. The Learned Advocate also relies on the case law of CCE, New Customs House, Mumbai Vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd.-2007 (209) E.L.T. 331 (S.C.). He submits that in this case, the Supreme Court has held when other evidence in the form of proper bank realization statement and purchase details have been brought in by the party, the same cannot be ignored by the Department when they are trying the enhance the value of the exported consignment by 450%. He submits that the case law is squarely covered in their favour. Accordingly, the Learned Advocate prays that the present Appeals may be allowed. 6. The Learned AR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. He further submits that the Invoice given to SGS for inspection shows much lesser value than what the Appellant has shown for the export of these 12 consignments. The quantity totally shown in the Invoice available with the SGS differs with the quantity of the 12 Invoices used for exports. The total value shown in that one of the Invoice given to SGS was the actual Invoice value in each of the 12 invoices individually. Thus, the Appellant has easily inflated the price by at least 12 ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2.10 is considered, we do not see any over valuation. As per the present calculation of the Department, the sale price should be less than 10 Cents if 330% over valuation is to be considered. In this case, apart from relying on the Invoices found with SGS, no other corroborative evidence in whatever form has been brought in by Department to fortify their allegation. 9. The Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. cited supra has held as under:- 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs proceeded against the assessee by alleging that the assessee had mis-declared the FOB value at US $3.40 (Rs. 150/-) per piece. It was the view of the Department that the price was inflated to get more DEPB benefit. The original order ensued wherein it was held that the export price was not genuine considering the local purchase price to be Rs. 35/- per piece only. It was held that the export price could not be as high as Rs. 157/- (450%) and that it was unlikely that there would be such a vast variation between the domestic price and export price acceptable in the competitive export market. By making his own calculations, the FOB price was computed and fixed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
