https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055Tax Updates - Daily Update
https://www.taxtmi.com
Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax ServicesTax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes2006 (8) TMI 399 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119862
https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119862Valuation - FOB value - Overvaluation - shipping bills for export both under DEPB and drawback - Present Market Value of the goods - Whether the FOB value of US $ 7.5 = to Rs. 338/- per piece of Cotton T-Shirts/Knitted T-Shirts ( the said goods ) as declared is correct ? - HELD THAT:- We find that it is required for the Revenue to show that in the course of international trade, such or like goods have been exported at or about Rs. 35/- or Rs. 42/-, in the face of the language of Section 14 of the Customs Act, which provides that the value of goods for export shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of exportation in the course of international trade, where the buyer and the seller have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration. In the absence of evidence of contemporaneous exports at the proposed value of Rs. 35/- per T-Shirt, the contention of the Revenue cannot be accepted. The value declared before Dubai Customs is not only not relevant, in law, but is also not the basis of the proposed valuation in the show cause notice. The Revenue s submission on date of let export order preceding date of Bill of Lading has no relevance to the determination of FOB value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The further submission that the remittance in foreign currency does not relate to export goods is not tenable for the reason that terms of payment for the goods is a contractual obligation between the parties thereto and does not detract from the correctness of the FOB value declared. We, therefore, accept the contention of the exporter that the FOB value has been correctly declared by them and consequent thereto, hold that the goods are not liable to confiscation u/s 113(1), and reject the Revenue s appeal. Whether the determination of the Present Market Value (PMV) of Rs. 35/- per piece by the Commissioner is correct, as against the PMV of Rs. 120/- declared by the exporters and consequently, whether the exporters are entitled for drawback as claimed by them ? - The contention of the revenue that the declared PMV of Rs. 120/-per piece cannot be accepted in view of the fixation of the tariff value for articles of apparel falling under CETA sub-heading 6101.00 or 6201.00 @ 60% of the retail sale price declared or required to be declared on the retail packages under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 or the Rules made thereunder or under any other law for the time being in force, as per Notification 20/2001-C.E.(N.T.), under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Central Excise Act, and the contention that the exporter has not produced any evidence of printing of Rs. 120/- RSP on the retail package of the goods cannot be accepted for the reason that this was not the ground in the show cause notice for which the declared PMV was proposed to be rejected and not the finding of the adjudicating authority. Thus, we hold that the PMV has been correctly declared by the exporters and they are, therefore, entitled to drawback as claimed. To sum up, we hold that the FOB value and the Present Market Value of the goods in question have been correctly declared by the exporter, drawback is admissible to them, and that goods are not liable to confiscation and the exporter and others are not liable to penalty. In the result, Appeals filed by the exporter s company and its officers and the shipping agencies and partners thereof are allowed. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.Case-LawsCustomsTue, 08 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530