Export overvaluation allegations need proof of non-export, while DEPB credit eligibility remains within DGFT control.

Allegations of over-invoicing and bogus supporting documents do not by themselves sustain confiscation of export goods or penalty unless there is proof that the goods were not exported or were otherwise liable under the customs law. On DEPB benefits, Customs cannot unilaterally reverse, restrict, or re-determine eligibility or credit quantum, as that function rests with the competent DGFT authority. If factual material suggests a change is warranted, Customs must report the matter to DGFT for appropriate action. The impugned order was set aside on both confiscation-penalty and DEPB-credit issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the exported goods were liable to confiscation and the exporter and proprietor were liable to penalty on the allegation of over-invoicing and bogus supporting documents; (ii) Whether Customs authorities could order reversal, restriction, or re-determination of DEPB credit quantum and eligibility.

Issue (i): Whether the exported goods were liable to confiscation and the exporter and proprietor were liable to penalty on the allegation of over-invoicing and bogus supporting documents.

Analysis: The evidence relied upon by the department showed allegations of fictitious job workers and inflated FOB value, but there was no material to establish that the exported goods were never exported or were returned to town in the shut-out shipment. In the absence of such proof, confiscation under the customs provision invoked for export goods and consequential penalty could not be sustained merely on the basis of valuation allegations.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Customs authorities could order reversal, restriction, or re-determination of DEPB credit quantum and eligibility.

Analysis: The DEPB credit was a matter for the competent DGFT authority, and Customs could not sit in appeal over the eligibility or quantum of such credit. If any alteration was required on the basis of facts gathered, the matter had to be reported to DGFT for appropriate action, rather than being unilaterally decided by Customs.

Conclusion: The orders restricting and reversing DEPB benefits were without jurisdiction and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable on both confiscation-penalty and DEPB-credit issues, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Customs authorities cannot unilaterally determine DEPB credit eligibility or quantum, and confiscation or penalty for alleged export overvaluation requires proof that the goods were not exported or were otherwise liable under the customs law.

---