9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n investigation found that the scarves are not of Rayon but only polyester scarves and the appellant purchased the scarves at the rate of Rs. 8/- per piece. Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for confiscation of the goods on the ground that misdeclaration of the value of the goods and for denial of benefit of drawback on the ground amount of value of the goods is less than the amount of drawback and for imposition of penalty, the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant and also denied the benefit of drawback. The adjudicating authority also held that the goods are liable for confiscation on the ground that misdeclaration of the value. 3. The contention of the appellant is that all the relied up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pping Bills under the bona fide belief that this value is to be mentioned in the Shipping Bills. The contention is that if, the evidence produced by the appellant, which is already before the adjudicating authority, was taken into consideration, then there is no misdeclaration on their part. It is also argued that all the contentions raised by the exporter are not considered by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 6. The contention of the Revenue is that appellant in the Shipping Bills and in the invoices accompanying the Shipping Bills, deliberately added the description as Rayon, whereas in the fact, these are man-made polyester scarves. The contention is that even the purchase order by the forei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... country is the relevant consideration and not the price of the goods which exporters to receive from the overseas purchaser. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 423 (S.C.). 6. In this case, the appellant challenged the order passed by the adjudicating authority, whereby the personal penalty is imposed and the claim of the drawback amount was rejected and the adjudicating authority also held that goods are liable for confiscation. The appellant filed 13 Shipping Bills declaring the goods as man-made Polyester/Rayon Scarves. The samples of the goods were sent to Chemical Examiner for testing and test report showin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchasers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia v. C.C., Delhi (supra) also held that for the purpose of drawback, the market price prevalent in the country is relevant. In the present case, we find that the appellants misdeclared the goods in respect of the description as well as in respect of the value of the goods. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby it was held that goods were liable for confiscation. As the market value of the goods is less than the drawback claim. Therefore, drawback claim was also rightly rejected. 8. In respect of the penalty, we find that the penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs is imposed on the appellant, whereas appellant could have availed the benefit of drawback, to appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
