Completed export assessment cannot be reopened post-Let Export Order to alter value, confiscate goods, or deny DEPB benefits.

Once export assessment is completed and the Let Export Order is issued, customs cannot reopen the assessment of goods already exported by rejecting the declared transaction value, altering the shipping bill description, or re-determining value under the Export Valuation Rules. Goods that have left India cannot be subjected to confiscation under the export confiscation provisions. On that same footing, denial of DEPB benefits and recovery of duty through DEPB scrips were not sustainable, because the incentive scheme is tied to FOB value and customs could not disturb it through post-export value reworking. Penalties under sections 114A and 114AA also could not survive once the duty demand and alleged false declaration basis failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commissioner could reject the declared transaction value of goods already exported and re-determine the value under the Export Valuation Rules; (ii) whether the description in the shipping bills could be altered after assessment and issuance of the Let Export Order; (iii) whether confiscation could be ordered in respect of goods already exported; (iv) whether denial of DEPB benefits and recovery of duty paid through DEPB scrips was sustainable; and (v) whether penalties under sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 could survive.

Issue (i): whether the Commissioner could reject the declared transaction value of goods already exported and re-determine the value under the Export Valuation Rules.

Analysis: Assessment of export goods is completed when the proper officer allows export and issues the Let Export Order. Once the goods are exported, they cease to be export goods for the purpose of further assessment. The available statutory routes for modification of assessment are appeal, provisional assessment, amendment, correction of clerical error, or recovery of duty where duty is otherwise leviable. None of those routes justified a post-export reworking of the shipping bill assessment in the present case.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and re-determination of value after export was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the description in the shipping bills could be altered after assessment and issuance of the Let Export Order.

Analysis: The shipping bills had already been assessed and the goods exported. In the absence of appeal by the Department or any other legally permissible mechanism that could validly alter the completed assessment, the authority had no power to substitute a different description for the exported goods.

Conclusion: The alteration of the export description was without authority and could not stand.

Issue (iii): whether confiscation could be ordered in respect of goods already exported.

Analysis: Section 113 applies to export goods liable to confiscation, but goods already taken out of India are no longer within the customs control relevant to such confiscation proceedings. On that footing, confiscation of goods that had already left India was impermissible.

Conclusion: The confiscation orders were unsustainable.

Issue (iv): whether denial of DEPB benefits and recovery of duty paid through DEPB scrips was sustainable.

Analysis: DEPB entitlement is linked to FOB value and is issued by the DGFT under the export incentive scheme. Re-determination of assessable value by customs does not alter the transaction value for the export contract or the FOB value on which the incentive is based. Customs authorities had no locus to deny DEPB scrips or to demand duty on the premise that such scrips were wrongly used.

Conclusion: Denial of DEPB benefits and recovery of duty paid through the scrips were not sustainable.

Issue (v): whether penalties under sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 could survive.

Analysis: Penalty under section 114A depends on a sustainable duty demand under section 28, and penalty under section 114AA presupposes false or incorrect declarations in the statutory documents. Since the duty demand itself was invalid and the declared values were the contractual transaction values, the penalties could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The penalties under sections 114A and 114AA could not survive.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in its entirety so far as it applied to the appellants, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Once export assessment is completed and the Let Export Order is issued, customs cannot reopen or alter the assessment of already exported goods, cannot confiscate such goods, and cannot deny DEPB benefits or impose consequential penalties on the basis of a post-export re-determination of value.

---