TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y this common order. 2. The first appellant, M/s. Skin Touch International (Proprietor - Shri Havendra Singh) is the exporter and the second appellant, M/s. R.K. International (Proprietor - Shri Padam Gupta) is the Clearing Agent. Under the impugned orders, the Commissioner, Customs has denied DEPB benefit of about Rs. 7 lakhs to the exporter and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on him. Similarly a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh has been imposed on Shri Padam Gupta. 3. Facts may be stated briefly. M/s. Skin Touch International exported 56,600 Non-Pyrogenic Sterile Infusion Sets to M/s. Fram Vex, Yeravan, Armenia via, UAE between July to October, 1999. In the four shipping bills covering the export, value declared was US $ .75 (Rs. 32....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervaluation and foregoing of already availed DEPB benefit was voluntary. The exporter cannot at a later stage contend that it was no so. The exporter's contention in this regard is not sustainable. Thus overvaluation of export goods was with an intention to claim higher DEPB benefit. Further, CHA should have taken precaution to see that goods are not overvalued which he failed to do so. ORDER M/s. Skin Touch International filed shipping bills for export of Non-pyrogenic Sterile Infused sets & to avail DEPB benefit. The value of each piece was declared as US $ .75 (Rs.32.40). On market enquiry the value per piece was found to be Rs. 4/- Therefore, the DEPB benefit of Rs. 3.43,166.60 is denied to them in terms of para 7.36 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xport value of the goods for DEPB claim. 5. Learned DR on the other hand, justifies the order impugned on the ground that the present case is a clear case of overvaluation and misdeclaration of export price for the purpose of gaining undue DEPB benefit. He has referred us to the fact that the market verification of price was carried out along with exporter. He had admitted that the export goods were purchased at the rate of Rs. 4 - 4.25 per piece at Bhagirathi Place, Delhi and he had no bills or payment evidence to support the price. He had also voluntarily given up the claim for DEPB benefit and sought export of the goods under non-DEPB shipping bills. In regard to the previous export also, he had voluntarily returned the DEPB bene....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... party to the fraud and merited penalty, according to learned DR. 7. We do not find any justification for interfering with the order impugned. The price declarations made by the appellants have been found to be entirely false. The market verification had been done in the presence of exporter. He had admitted in those enquiries that the price declared by him were false. He had also admitted that no bills or challans were available to support the declared price. The case involves the procurement of several lakhs Rupees worth goods. It is not normal that such large consignments are transacted without any documents. Particularly, when the export goods are eligible for exemption from various taxes like central excise, sales tax. Therefor....