9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aration. In these circumstances, penalties and fine in respect of the consignment covered by Shipping Bill No. 1207422, dated 16-4-2002 are fully justified. Penalties in regard to the previous eight exports were also fully justified. The amounts are also not high when compared to the gravity of the offence and the amount of D.E.P.B. benefit sought to be falsely obtained. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalties imposed under the order are confirmed. However, we find merit in the appellants submission relating to demand for differential amount after adjusting Rs. 7,19,660/- from Rs. 45,41,898/-. If the appellants had only made claim and had not received the D.E.P.B. claim, there will be no occasion to ask them to refund the amount. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigations showed that the value of the tyre was about Rs. 26/- per piece, while in the export document the appellant had declared an F.O.B. exports price of Rs. 192/-. The same amount was declared as Present Market Value (PMV) also. The export of tyres are eligible for duty entitlement @ 20% of F.O.B. value. This is subject to a ceiling that the benefit shall not exceed 50% of the market value of the goods. Thus, declared values entitled the appellant to a duty entitlement of over Rs. 38/- per tyre, while if the correct F.O.B. value and P.M.V. had been declared such entitlement would have much less, and in any case not more than Rs. 13/- (50% of P.M.V.). During investigation, Shri B.N. Kejriwal, Director of the exporting company stated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. I allow redemption of the aforesaid goods on payment of a fine of Rs. Three lakh only. I impose a penalty of Rs. One lakh on M/s. Dimension Overseas (P) Ltd., and Rs. 50,000/- on Shri B.N. Kejriwal, Director, under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. As regards the case covered by SCN DRI F. No. 23/51/2002-DZU dated 4-12-2002, having regard to liability of 1,29,300 pcs. of bicycle tyres of declared fob value of Rs. 2,27,12,569/- and of actual market value of Rs. 35,98,300/- to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, read with the provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act and Rules, together with Section 11 of the Customs Act, I impose a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs on M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that the order was entirely unjustified in demanding "differential amount" from the appellant after deducting Rs. 7,19,660/- from D.E.P.B. credit of Rs. 45,41,898/- claimed by the appellant (Para 58 of the order). The submission of the learned Counsel is that the amount of Rs. 45,41,898/- represented the appellants, D.E.P.B. claim; but the amount had not been paid to them. In fact, only an amount of Rs. 12,80,000/- has been received by them as D.E.P.B. benefit and that amount remains already returned to the customs. 6. Learned S.D.R. has pointed out that this is a case of huge and deliberate D.E.P.B. fraud. The exporter was trying to obtain D.E.P.B. credit far in excess of even the total purchase price of the goods un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... several times the Indian purchase price. Such a high export price is not justified by market factors. The Commissioner was therefore, entirely justified in rejecting the export price also. In fact, he has passed his order relying on the following observations of the Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia (supra). We may read para 48 of the order :- "1. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s. Om Prakash Bhatia in Civil Appeal No. 4060 of 2001 decided on July 7, 2003 settles the issue of valuation of export goods by the Customs by holding that the "exporter has to declare true or correct export value of the goods, that is to say, correct sale consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is noted above, there is no justification to interfere with the findings on misdeclaration of value by the Commissioner. The gravity of the offence and considerable financial fraud are also evident. Shri B.N. Kejriwal, Director of the firm has admitted to his personal responsibility and motive for carrying out the misdeclaration. In these circumstances, penalties and fine in respect of the consignment covered by Shipping Bill No. 1207422, dated 16-4-2002 are fully justified. Penalties in regard to the previous eight exports were also fully justified. The amounts are also not high when compared to the gravity of the offence and the amount of D.E.P.B. benefit sought to be falsely obtained. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalties imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
