2000 (11) TMI 673 - AT - Customs

Dispute over duty drawback & pricing strategy leads to penalty imposition reversed in favor of appellant

FRANKTEX ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PORT), CALCUTTA

The case involved a dispute over duty drawback claimed on FOB value discrepancy and allegations of over-invoicing for duty drawback purposes. The ... Export - Draw-back Issues:1. Duty drawback claimed on FOB value discrepancy.2. Allegation of over-invoicing and price inflation for duty drawback.3. Market survey findings and investigation results.4. Rejection of declared price and imposition of penalty.5. Appellant's defense and evidence presented.6. Justification of declared price and comparison with market survey.Analysis:1. The judgment addressed the issue of duty drawback claimed on FOB value discrepancy. The Commissioner of Customs sanctioned duty drawback based on a lower FOB value than claimed by the appellant, leading to a penalty imposition. The appellant was accused of over-invoicing cotton knitted garments to Moscow to claim excess duty drawback.2. The allegation of over-invoicing and price inflation for duty drawback was central to the case. The appellant declared a unit price of Rs. 209.00 per piece (CIF) for T-Shirts, while investigations revealed discrepancies in the procurement process and pricing strategy. The Revenue conducted a market survey and found similar goods priced between Rs. 60 to Rs. 120 per piece.3. The judgment detailed the market survey findings and investigation results. Initial surveys indicated no identical goods, but subsequent inquiries revealed prices ranging from Rs. 95 to Rs. 160 per piece. The Revenue calculated an average price of Rs. 127.50 per piece, leading to the rejection of the appellant's declared price.4. The rejection of the declared price and the imposition of a penalty were based on the discrepancy between the appellant's pricing and the market survey results. The show cause notice proposed a lower unit price for duty drawback calculation, which the appellant contested during adjudication.5. The appellant's defense included clarifications on being traders, not manufacturers, and procuring goods from local suppliers. Despite initial challenges in verifying the suppliers' existence, subsequent confirmation supported the appellant's claims. The overseas buyers' contract, letter of credit, and payment records were presented as evidence.6. The judgment justified the appellant's declared price by highlighting the lack of effort by the Revenue to assess the quality match between surveyed goods and exported goods. The discrepancy in T-Shirt quality justified price variations, and the appellant's procurement documents and supplier support reinforced their position. The judgment concluded that comparing the declared price with the market survey average was unjustifiable, leading to the reversal of the impugned order and relief for the appellants.