TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 764
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erior quality. The samples drawn from consignments covered by two out of the eight shipping bills were found on test to be not 100% polyester fabric. The weight per sq.m of fabrics covered by six shipping bills was found to be around 50 gms. Market enquiries revealed that none of the consignments conformed to the declaration as regards value. As against the declared unit price Rs. 183/- per yard, enquires revealed the unit price of similar fabrics in the local market to be within Rs. 25/- to Rs. 30/- per metre. 2. In his statement dated 6-7-2006 Shri Sanjeev Choudhary, proprietor of M/s. Asha Enterprises, stated that the price of the impugned fabrics was Rs. 50 to 55/- per metre. The officers found that invoices of "M/s. Maharani In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of recording statement under duress from Shri Sanjeev Choudhary was not established. The market enquiries had revealed that the present market value of identical goods were Rs. 25/- to Rs. 30/- per metre as against Rs. 183/- per yard declared. Therefore, the export goods were over valued to obtain a DEPB credit of Rs. 22,80,322/- whereas the admissible credit was only Rs. 3,46,203/- considering the FOB value as Rs. 30/- per metre. On a finding of over invoicing the export goods and misdeclaring the description of the goods, the Commissioner passed the following order after due process of law. (1) Fixed the value of the export goods at Rs. 51,88,500/- as against the declared Rs. 3,14,92,763.50 in the shipping bil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms Act '62 (the Act). In J.G. Exports v. CC - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 754 (Tri.-LB.), it was held that overvaluation of export goods was not an offence under the Act. Only two consignments were allegedly not of 100% polyester fabrics. Asha had purchased the goods from the market. Asha had not violated any provisions of the Act. Several judicial authorities were cited in support of the legal pleas. 5. Before us during hearing, the ld. Counsel for the appellants reiterated the following grounds taken in the appeal. (i) The Commissioner had relied on the test results of a sample which was drawn in the absence of the appellants. (ii) The method of sampling was not known. (iii) &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contrary to the description in the shipping bills, mainly on the basis of test report of representative samples. No sample was handed over to the appellants. No sample was drawn in the presence of a representative of the exporter. Therefore, the Commissioner could not legally use the results of a test conducted at the back of the exporter to draw findings adverse to him. Therefore, the finding of the export fabrics being inferior in quality and not conforming to the declared description has not been validly made in the impugned order. 8. As regards the finding of misdeclaration of value, we find that the Commissioner had used results of market enquiry for the purpose. However, the details of the enquiry such as the persons contacte....