9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led four shipping bills at ICD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi for export of threading bars M-8/M-10 and machine made woolen carpets to the consignee in Dubai. Department had specific information about the goods to have been overvalued in the said Bills of Entry No. 4319867, 4319864, 4319873 and 4323577 dated 21.05.201 by virtue of an alert letter dated 23.05.2019. As requested therein, the consignment of the respondent was put on hold for detailed examination by the officers of Custom Preventive Commissionerate. The examination was conducted on 25.05.2019 in presence of Shri Sushil Gautam, G-Card holder of the customs broker of respondent namely M/s. Maxim Clearing and Shipping Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. The four containers with respect to the impugned consignment were also weighed in their presence. The quantity of goods found tallied with the quantity of goods in pieces/bales/rolls as declared in the export documents, however, the weight did not tally. Also,the carpets were found to be of inferior quality and appeared to be made up of synthetic fabric as contrary to the declaration in the export documents as machine made woollen carpets. With the consent of said G-Card holder, the samples were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was re-determined at Rs.1,21,58,910/- as against the declared FOB value Rs.11,75,95,061/-. The goods were order to be confiscated under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.However, on request of the exporter himself, were ordered to be released provisionally subject to the conditions as already mentioned above. The penalty was imposed upon the respondent-exporter under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The items exported were reclassified as "polyester carpet" under CTH 57049090 as different from the declared CTH 47049020. 1.5 The said order was challenged by the exporter-respondent and vide the order under challenge/Order-in-Appeal, the said Order-in-Original has been modified to the effect as already mentioned above. Subsequent thereto a Review Order No. 21/2021 of December 2021 suggesting for an appeal to be filed before this Tribunal with the following prayers: (i) To set aside the instant order passed by the Appellate Authority and uphold the Order dated 27.06.2019 issued by the Adjudicating Authority whereby the goods were confiscated after redetermination of value and Redemption Fine and Penalty were imposed. (ii) To set aside the reduction of FOB value b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved that there is no finding about the value declared by the respondent-exporter was not the transaction value as required in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The declared value has wrongly been accepted holding lack of evidence. It is impressed upon that there was a clear admission not only of the exporter but of the CHA and even of the consignee of the impugned shipping bills. Resultantly, the order under challenge is actually a contradictory order as one point of time he has upheld confiscation of carpets but has set aside the confiscation of threading bars despite that the grounds for confiscation for both mis-declaration of value with intention to avail higher export incentives as that of drawback MEIS, IGST etc. With these submissions the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. While rebutting these submissions learned counsel for the respondent-assessee as mentioned that on examination of goods the quantity of the goods i.e. number of pieces and the carpet area etc. were found tallied to the quantity as was declared in the shipping bills. The test report submitted by CEPC and CRCL were different, hence have r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of namely Shri Ankit Sehgal while being examined on 30.05.2019 had mentioned him to be the trader who purchase the goods/carpets to export the same. However, he admitted that the description of carpet in the impugned shipping bills was mis-declared. The shortage of quantity of carpets in terms of area was clearly admitted in his subsequent statement dated 10.06.2019. With respect to the difference in weight of threading bars proposed to be exported in the impugned consignment, the said proprietor mentioned that the threading bars were to be exported based on per piece criteria. Hence any difference in weight of the consignment for threading bars is irrelevant for the alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation. In the light of this kind of statement of respondent himself, we proceed to examine the findings goods wise i.e. for carpets and threading bars separately as follows: 8. Carpets Apparently and admittedly the samples of the carpets from the detained consignment were drawn in the presence of the authorized representative of the respondent i.e. his CHA. Though samples were got examined initially from CEPC vide report dated 12.06.2019 and subsequently by CRPL vide 19.06.2019. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s therefore ordered to be set aside. 9. Threading bars Apparently and admittedly the quality and number of pieces of threading bars to be exported vide impugned shipping bills (two for threading bars and remaining two for carpets) was found as per the declaration in the shipping bills. The consignment of threading bars was detained based upon the difference in weight of the containers as was observed at the time of vehement than the one declared in the shipping bills. We observe that the sole contention of respondent is that they have never tried to export threading bars on weight basis. They were exporting the threading bars on piece basis and length basis as is also apparent from the copies of shipping bills placed on record, the threading bars both of M-8/M-10 quality have been valued unit wise. There is no mention of weight of the threading bars in the shipping bills. Thus, findings with respect to no misdeclaration nor any undervaluation with respect to threading bars has rightly been arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals). The re-determined value for threading bars has rightly been set aside. The confiscation thereof has rightly been set aside. We uphold the impugned order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
