By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 21, 2017: THESE are appeals filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai.

The Appellant submits -

+ There was no overvaluation of the export of garments exported from India to Dubai.

+ When value of the goods exported was ascertained by Revenue from market, that should have been confronted to the appellant for rebuttal but was not done.

+ The value quoted by the informers in the market was used against the appellant and declared value of the goods meant for export was reduced for no reason.

+ The market survey result was used against appellant and such survey was done behind the back of the appellant.

+ Statements recorded were not exposed to appellant for rebuttal. Similarly, when cross-examination was prayed by the appellant,the same was not allowed by Revenue and hence the adjudication fails.

The AR supported the impugned order and submitted that the adjudicating authority had gathered evidence following due course of justice and examined the same in adjudication in the presence of the appellant.

The Member (J) writing for the Bench observed thus -

++ Market enquiry was not the sole evidence used by Revenue in adjudication to find mis-declaration of value of export and reduced the value of over-valued goods declared to Customs. Department found from market that the goods meant for exports were available in market at very low prices. That established overvaluation of exportable goods to secure undue benefit by appellant .

++ Appellant did not challenge the cost and market price of the goods purchased by it and that remained uncontroverted. When the cost of the goods manufactured was ascertained from R.K. Bhardwaj, he provided the basis of costing of goods. Such basis was provided to appellant to defend as appearing at page 6 & 9 of the adjudication order.

++ Futile exercise was made by the appellant to challenge allegation without placing terms and condition of the job working and value of the exported goods. In absence of any basis being provided by appellant to contradict enquiry result, appellant failed to prove its case. No cogent and credible evidence were led to prove that there was no mis-declaration of the value of the goods exported.

++ The costing data proved overvaluation of the export goods. Total value of the goods declared as Rs.29,38,320/- was reduced to Rs.8,85,500/-. Law is well settled that if mis-declaration is found to be deliberate than the declared value, the goods shall be treated as smuggled one. DEPB claim was accordingly reduced on the basis of assessed value.

However, the penalty on the appellants was reduced from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- each in proportion to the re-determined value of the impugned goods at Rs.8,85,500/- as against declared FOB value of Rs.29,38,320/- [Mansi Export - 2011-TIOL-78-SC-CUS relied upon].

The appeals were partly allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-3011-CESTAT-MUM)