AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04.2007 passed by the Adjudicating authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Export Shed), New Delhi and held that the assessee were entitled for DEPB benefit at declared export price. 2. The facts of the case as stated in the Commissioner (Appeals) s order are stated below to appreciate the issue involved in the appeals that the appellants M/s.Kadmabri Worldwide filed two shipping Bills No.1543780 dated 07.11.2005 and M/s.Kultar Exports filed two shipping bills No.1532727 and No.1532729 dt.27.9.2006 for export of Man Made Filament Yarn with or without embroidery and made ups of one or more man made filament yarn under DEPB scheme. The description of the goods declared was Man Made Filament Yarn with or without embroidery and made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the value arrived at as a result of market enquiry was very low in comparison to the said shipping bills. The case was decided by the Adjudicating authority who decided that the value of the impugned goods @ Rs. 22.00 per Metre in respect of shipping bill No.1532727 dated 27.09.2006 was correct market price. Similarly in respect of value of impugned goods at the rate of Rs. 22/- in respect of shipping bill No.1543780 was correct market price. 4. Ld.Counsel of the assessee contested before the Commissioner (Appeals) that overvaluation held by the department and that there was no overvaluation of goods exported to M/s.Pardesh Mulla Khail Kamawal Co.Ltd.,Kabul which were in the normal course of international trade on the negotiated price. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tic price and the export price was no ground for holding that the export price was a mis-declaration or that over-invoicing was involved. In the above said case, the variation between the domestic price and the export price was in the range of 450%. 6. Reference was also made to the Tribunal s judgment in the case of CC, Mumbai vs. Frost International Ltd.-2005 (188) ELT 122 (Tri.Mum.) wherein it was held that the declared value was acceptable in view of similar goods having been exported at price declared by the exporter on an earlier occasion also and no objection was raised. Accordingly, Order-in-Original was set aside holding that the assessee were entitled to DEPB at the declared export price. 7. On the other hand, ld.JCDR Ms.Ranjana....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on has been undertaken for availing higher DEPB benefit. Since Revenue has come up in appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Reference was made to circular No.26/4/2001 wherein it has been stated that in case over-invoicing of export goods, PMV shall be determinative factor for allowing DEPB benefit. Reference was also made to the Circular No.63/2002-Cus dated 27.9.2002, Circular No.77/2002-Cus dated 27.11.2002 and Circular No.7/2003-Cus dated 5.2.2003. 9. In the above circulars, reference was also made to the Larger Bench judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia vs. CC-2001 (127) ELT 81 wherein it was held that section 14 of the Customs Act would apply to export valuation also. Reliance was placed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicable for determining export price. It was held by the Supreme Court that market price of the goods prevailing in the country was the relevant consideration for purpose of getting drawback, and not the price of the goods which the exporter expects to receive from the overseas purchaser. In respect of over-invoicing of readymade garment when margin of profit appears, on the face of it, unreasonable, it was for the exporter to establish that true export value has been stated in the shipping bills. 12. Respondents supported the impugned orders. Heard both sides and gone through the records to appreciate the rival contentions. The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice of Rs. 80 per yard and export price of Rs. 102 per yard was based on the imaginary figures as the actual figures involved in the present matter are market price of Rs. 20-22 per metre and FOB value of Rs. 132 per metre. The FOB value was discovered by the Revenue through market enquiry. It is also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed the order based on the wrong facts and figures. Obviously when he was unmindful of the correct facts and figures, he could not appreciate the context of applicability of judgement quoted by the Revenue and the respondents/exporters. As consequence, it would be inappropriate for us as final fact finding authority to base our decision on Order-in-Appeal which does not take into account the fact....