2001 (1) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....' shirts packed in 400 pkgs. and stocked in container. The declared value of the export goods was Rs. 340/- per piece i.e. total value of about Rs. 2.7 crores. The drawback claim for the export worked out to about Rs. 38 lakhs (@ 14.5% of F.O.B. value). Based on information Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officers examined the goods at Haldia. The consignment was found to be exclusively of 'Round Necked Cotton Baniyans'. It appeared that the market price of the goods was less than the amount claimed as drawback and the exporter was ineligible for any drawback in view of the provisions contained in Section 76(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The exporter explained that the goods were procured from two Ludhiana units namely M/s. Liberty Ho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in Shilpi Exports v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 302 (Tribunal), that since the appellant has realised the full export value declared, no penalty is imposable. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel representing the appellant and DR. The appellants' contention regarding the market value of the goods was that they were procured from the Ludhiana supplier at a cost of Rs. 225/- per piece. The investigation with the purported supplier revealed that the goods sold by them to the appellant were different from the goods tendered for export. Further, contrary to the appellant's claim regarding purchase of the goods at a price of Rs. 225/- per piece from Ludhiana, investigations established that the goods were....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of improper export. In the instant case, investigation established that the appellants have deliberately tried to commit a fraud on the revenue by claiming a huge amount of approximately Rs. 38 lakhs as a drawback, even as the value of the exported goods was hardly one half of the amount claimed as drawback. The claim was also sought to be defended on a false story that the goods had been purchased at a value of Rs. 225/- per piece from Ludhiana while they had, in fact, been purchased at about Rs. 21/- 22/-. The section contemplates a penalty not exceeding five times the amount of drawback claimed. In the present case, a penalty of over Rs. 1.8 crores could have been imposed on the appellant. As against this, the penalty imposed is only....