TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (9) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... erroneously granted due to alleged over-valuation with a view to obtain inadmissible drawback. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in October, 1995, M/s. Unimac (I) Ltd. had exported brake screws, brake shoes and bridge chips, for mudguard, declaring unit price of Rs. 11.85, Rs. 16.65 and Rs. 13.15 respectively through Mumbai port. The same goods were attempted to be exported through Madras port @ Rs. 5.60. Market enquiries conducted by DRI, Madras, revealed that the items were available for sale in the market @ Rs. 0.69 and Rs. 0.90 per piece. M/s. Gulishta Impex Ltd. had exported brake screw, brake shoe and handle lever and cotter pin declaring unit price of Rs. 11.00, Rs. 19.20, Rs. 11.40, Rs. 14.80 and Rs. 18.30, in 1995 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uality of goods relied upon in the market enquiry conducted by DRI, Madras, was different from that of the goods exported through Mumbai by the three exporters and therefore the price of the Madras goods could not be adopted for the purpose of valuation of the goods cleared through Mumbai; that evidence obtained by DRI regarding value declarations and clearances of goods at Moscow customs relied upon in the show cause notice were not relevant to decide the admissibility of drawback to exporters in India; that purchase prices of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) relied upon in the show cause notice do not reflect the price at which merchant exporters were procuring bicycle parts and export them to Madras; that since the goods were insp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the prices were highly over-valued, that enquiries conducted from local market and Moscow customs revealed that the goods were over-invoiced above the market value and, therefore, the provisions of Section 76(1)(b) are attracted for disallowing drawback and that the goods were cleared in Russia by change in the name of the consignee and rates, quantity and value of goods, which is not proper or legally permissible. 8. We find that the weight of the goods exported in the instant case is clearly different from those of the Madras exports. The details are as under :- (a) Unimac Weight per piece(gms) Mumbai Weight per piece(gms) Madras Brake screw Brake shoe Bridge chip 7.77/7.5 7.2 13.54/12.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stantiation as to what was the market value so as to establish that the drawback was more than the market value of the goods. 9. As regards the documents obtained from Moscow customs, we find that the Commissioner has analysed and discussed each of such documents obtained by the DRI from Moscow customs. In particular, he has noted that the contract allegedly presented to Russian customs was between NPO Intertek & Rajrani Exports and the goods covered by the said contract were totally different, viz. PVC, tea, toothpaste, soap, jute bags, rice etc. and bicycle parts were not covered by the contract. The Commissioner has also discussed letter dated 19-7-1996 of the Additional Director General, DRI, Delhi, which quotes some shipping ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... declared in Russia was correct. FOB value of export goods cannot be determined with reference to the market price in India, in the light of the language of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides that the value of import or export goods 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 importation or exportation, as the case may be, in the course of international trade, and in the light of the Tribunal's order in Frost International supra. 11. We also note that the case of the department is based on quotations and not on actual sale transactions, and quotations cannot be relied upon for the purpose of valuation. No sealed samples ....