TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g authority confiscated the goods of nature and quantity and imposed following condition for provisional release of goods:- (a) on execution of bond to the declared value of goods (FOB value for Rs. 3,68,17,804.80, (b) on furnishing of bank guarantee of an amount equivalent amount to 25% of FOB value of goods to cover redemption fine and personal penalty. (c) submission of solvency certificate, (d) on submission of an undertaking that the exporter will not dispute the quantity and identify of the goods (e) No drawback will be availed till the finalization of the case. 3. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted their request of withdrawal of consignment. 4. Para 9.1, 9.2 and para 10 of Commissioner (Appeals)'s o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no drawback will be available to the appellant, which could there have been on the assessed export value as a result of adjudication if the consignment was not withdrawn. I am of the considered opinion that other conditions remaining unchanged, a bank guarantee of Rs. 55,00,000/- only, which is around 15 per cent of declared value of the goods will be OK in this case." 5. Aggrieved by the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order who has granted substantial relief by way reducing need of furnishing of Bank Guarantee from 25% of FOB value of goods to Rs. 15% of FOB value of goods, appellant have come up in appeal to the Tribunal for further reduction of Bank guarantee on the following grounds: (a) That the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....els Ltd. vs. CC, Mangalore-2013 (288) ELT 115 (Tri.-Bang.). They further contended that as per facts of the case, there was no ground to impose execution of bank guarantee. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR pointed out that this was a case of mis-declaration and overvaluation of the goods which have been brought in the customs area for effecting export with intent to defraud revenue by getting higher drawback. It was only on the basis of intelligence, department was able to detect that gross overvaluation declared by the appellant with intent to defraud revenue to get higher drawback and also indulge in foreign exchange violations. He further stated that the party was not co-operating with the department as they have not responded to the vari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh and arbitrary as claimed by the appellant. Further when Commissioner (Appeals) has not granted sufficient relief, even when bank guarantee of 25% of seized goods value was reduced to 15% of the seized goods value. It is alleged by the revenue that the appellant have overvalued the export goods by 500% in order to claim higher amount of drawback and goods were liable for confiscation under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. It was further intimated that the matter was still under investigations and investigations were not progressing due to non-co-operation attitude of the appellant. 10. In submissions made before the bench, reference has been made to the Circular no.33/2005-ST dated 2.8.2005 and attention has been drawn to para 3 wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tment. This clearly points out towards ill mind having mens-rea. 13. I have perused judgements quoted by the appellants as well as the respondent but none of the judgements are applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case, overvaluation of 500% has been alleged. Further, no provisional assessment is resorted. It is observed that the appellant have not been co-operating with the department and have been avoiding summons and have not provided necessary information required to process the case. Once attempt to export is made after gross overvaluation and later appellant have come forward to withdraw consignments, intention to defraud revenue are prima facie indicated. It is further observed that the Commissioner (Appe....