TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (6) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the rate of 20% of FOB value. DEPB benefit is subject to the condition that the benefit cannot exceed 50% of the Present Market Value (PMV) of the goods under export. In view of this, the appellant declared the PMV of the export goods at about Rs. 1.3 crores. 2. Upon physical examination of the goods on 8-4-99, the Customs Officers felt that the goods had been highly overvalued/over-invoiced inasmuch as the declared FOB value came to Rs. 2140 per kg. of steel balls which value was several times higher than the value noticed for similar goods. In respect of previous exports, the value was found to vary in the range of Rs. 180 to Rs. 227 per kg. The case was therefore, referred by the Dock Customs Officer to Special Investigation & In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade Regulation Rules 1993 read with Section 11 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Notice proposed confiscation of the goods under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under Section 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Under the adjudication order dated 26-2-2002 impugned in the present appeals, the Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai upheld the charges and passed the following order : (a) Order confiscation of the Steel Balls for export under the S/Bills mentioned at S. No. l of the order above to the Union of India and which are still lying in the Docks. However, I allow the exporter to redeem the said goods on payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f deliberate misdeclaration of value and in taking an inordinate amount of time in adjudicating the case. The appellants have also submitted that the detention of the goods from March 1999 for almost three years has caused them great hardship and loss. It is also contended that the fines and penalties are exorbitant and unjustified in the facts of the case. They have pleaded for the release of the goods and quashing of the penalties. 5. As against this, the submission of the Revenue is that this was a case of deliberate over-invoicing of export goods to avail of disproportionately higher DEPB benefit. Learned DR has pointed out that the "clerical error" explanation offered by the appellant has no basis in facts, inasmuch as the veri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... kg. In these circumstances, the Commissioner was right in upholding the charge of misdeclaration of both FOB value and PMV, rendering the goods liable to confiscation and appellants to penalty. 8. The appellant's grievance about inordinate delay in finalising the case is entirely justified. The objection about the declared value was raised on 8-4-99, when the goods were examined. Appellant admitted the overvaluation and offered an explanation. Appellant's explanatory letter dated 12-4-99 was presented to the Customs on 3-5-99 by his clearing agent. The position was also reiterated in a statement made by the appellant on 9-6-99. The previous export prices also showed that once reduced by a factor of 12, the declared values conformed....