TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 799
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly) claimed on the above Shipping Bills was disallowed. Further, exports attempted to made through above Shipping Bills was confiscated being attempted to be improperly exported. Since the goods were released provisionally, the same were allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs.10 ,00,000 /- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) in lieu of confiscation thereof. (ii) In respect of exports made during the year 2004-05 to 2008-09 , FOB value of Rs. 1 ,59,66,35,071 /- (Rupees One Fifty Nine Crores Sixty Six Lacs Thirty Five Thousand and Seventy One only) declared by the exporter was rejected being over valued by misdeclaration and that was re-determined at Rs. 53,91,27,751/- (Rupees Fifty Three Crores Ninety One Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty One only). So also Drawback claim of Rs. 16,93,96,338/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Ninety Three Lacs Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Eight only) made on such imports was reduced to Rs. 4,93,16,928/- (Rupees Four Crores Ninety Three Lacs Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Eight only). (iii) Excess drawback amount of Rs. 12 ,00,79,410 /- (Rs. 16,93,96,338 - Rs.4,93,16,928) (Rupees Twelve Crores Seventy Nine Thousand Four ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge of 1304.44 sq. mtr . of carpet was noticed. Misdeclaration was made to claim higher drawback since the exporter in its declaration decalared the details of carpet for export as under:- SL. No. Shipping Bill Number Invoice no. Commodity Indian Hand Knotted Woollen Carpets Content No. of Rolls No. of sq. meters FOB in Rs. Drawback amount Rs. 01. 702/DBK/08 dated 07.06.2008 KC/1514/08 W/Yarn 80% C/Yarn 20% 270 1578.05 7930948.24 1054816 02. 703/DBK/08 dated 07.06.2008 KC/1515/08 W/Yarn 80% C/Yarn 20% 400 1652.20 8303610.23 1104380 03. 704/DBK/08 dated 07.06.2008 KC/1516/08 W/Yarn 80% C/Yarn 20% 341 1646.83 8276621.94 1100790 2.3 In all the three shipping bills in the above Table the material shown to have been used for the manufacture of carpet was 80% Woollen & 20% Cotton. Therefore, sample was taken from the consignments for testing by IICT, Bhadohi which revealed composition of goods attempted to be exported by aforesaid 3 shipping bill as under:- SL. No. Consumer Ref. Type of Carpets Knots/ sq. inch Overall composition as given in test report Composition as declared by exporter in export invoice 01. Shipping Bill No.702/ bd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... overvalued to claim excess drawback for such non-existing or short accounted exports ? (ii) Whether the quality of the carpets and the value declared by the exporter in their export documents was correct or the same was liable to be rejected for misdeclaration . (iii) Whether the appellants deliberately facilitated fraudulent exports for claim of higher drawback rendering them to penal action. 3.2 Examining the first issue in para 202 to 204 of adjudication order at page 136-137, learned Adjudicating Authority noticed that there was misdeclaration of description, quantity, quality and shortage of goods which were attempted to be exported through aforesaid 3 shipping bills to claim excessive draw back. 3.3 Examining issue No. 2, and following the test result of the testing laboratory, learned Adjudicating Authority inferred that other than the woollen and cotton, other materials were used to the extent of 5.58% to 14.08% in manufacture of carpet (Ref: para 208 of adjudication order) and concluded that inferior quality of goods were exported to claim higher drawback. He examined cost aspect of the goods and found that dubious method of valuation was adopted by appellant exporter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestigation. FOB value was rightly declared on the basis of specification and composition of the goods in view of the higher cost involved. Investigation failed to appreciate the bank transactions before alleging that those transactions were sham and done at the behest of the appellant. Purchases of carpets were made from genuine sellers whose details were provided to investigation including all income tax details. There were no fake sellers. 4.4 On the second count of allegation relating to past exports it was argued that those were done under proper scrutiny by departmental officers and in absence of material evidence, all the allegations relating to quality, quantity and value of export remain unfounded. Many of the orders of the Tribunal on the subject of export and draw back claims are in favour of the appellant and circular issued by Board on 9.10.2007 (Circular No. 37/2007-Cus) does not permit the value to be disturbed invoking Rule 5 of the Customs Value (Determination of Value of Exported goods) Rules, 2007. Rule 1(2) of the said value of Rules came into force from 10.10.2007. Therefore, Rule 5 has no relevance to the value adopted by Revenue. 4.5 Lastly it was argued t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titled the appellant to different rates of drawback. 7.2 Description of the exported goods in the concerned shipping bill was Indian Hand Tufted Woollen Carpet covered under DBK Schedule CH 570301 whereas testing of samples by IICT, Bhadohi , proved that the exported carpets were handloom which were covered by under DBK Schedule CH 570201 under the category 'woven' attracting lower rate of drawback than what was admissible on tufted carpets. Besides change in classification of the intended export of carpets, there was variation in manufacturing cost and value of the same. Handloom carpets were cheaper than tufted carpets having lower present market value. 7.3 To complete investigation relating to past and attempted exports, several letters were written to the noticees by the DRI requesting them to furnish details of costing viz. the materials used, quantity, weaving charges and other related information. They failed to furnish the details within the time stipulated. But the appellants protracted and prolonged the investigation. 7.4 As regards the past exports for the period 2004 to 2008, the exporter appellant claimed that for the past consignments no samples of carpets were dra....