TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rance of 90864 pieces of Ladies Nightwear covered by invoice No.POTA/EOL/075 dated 13.10.2001 raised by M/s. Prestige GeneralTrading, Dubai, UAE @ US$4.50 C&F per piece for a total value of US$408888/- C&F. Since both the import and export were in hard currency the importer requested permission to re-export the same without physical bonding to Russia declaring the unit price @ US$5.10 C&F per piece. The importer enclosed the re-export shipping bills signed by the CHA, GR Forms, export invoice meant for re-export to Russia and a copy of Contract No.TAL/SEL/038/01 dt. 19.10.2001. Examination of the goods revealed that the imported goods were of inferior quality, of Indian origin and that the goods were night wear in small size, were not suita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... declared at the time of import was US$30296/- M/s. Prestige General Trading did not appear neither as importer nor as exporter in the records of Dubai Customs. The invoice No. AMS-020 dated 13.10.2001 raised by M/s. Abdul Muhsen Shippping Est. Jebel Ali, Dubai shows the consignee as M/s. OOO SELEN, Russia, Moscow country of origin as India, value was US$30296.00, number of packages 541 cartons, weight 15939 Kgs. with a description of ladies nightwear with unit price of USD 56.00 carton. 1.4 Department initiated proceedings by way of issue of a Show Cause Notice dated 21.05.2002, interalia proposing confiscation of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.30887 dated 02.11.2001, fixing of assessable value of Rs. 15,31,994/- and imposition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.10.2001 showed Destination Russia. Thus the same consignment removed from Dubai could have been received by the appellant from Chennai Port. So also Bill of Lading dated 29.08.2001 furnished by the Manager of Port, Rashid shows Port of discharge as Moscow/Russia. Whereas the Bill of Entry purportedly for the same consignment shows Port of discharge as Jebel Ali. (v) Impugned order refers to letter dated 21.05.2002 received from the Consulate General of India in Dubai, regarding the alleged declaration of FOB value of consignment as US$30296. However, the said letter as not relied upon Show Cause Notice nor a copy thereof being furnished to the appellant. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan, AC, appeared on behalf of the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l imports of said or like goods for re-export to Russia and is a regular exporter of readymade garments. Therefore, consignment vide Dubai Customs Export Bill dated 13.10.2001 cannot be presumed to be the same consignment impugned in the present proceedings. 5.3 From the facts on record, however it emerges that the department had conducted exhaustive investigations in the matter. Such investigations reflected that the impugned import consignment though had been sent from Dubai to India had originally being imported from India itself by one Abdul Muhsen Shipping Est. Dubai on 12.07.2001 in 40 feet containers IKMU 500105-2 per vessel Xpress Kailash with country of origin declared as India. The import value for that consignment of 541 cartons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant while attempting re-export of the very same goods had presented an invoice dated 13.10.2001, purportedly of M/s. Prestige General Trading, Dubai, for total value of USD 4,08,888 C&F @ USD 4.50 C&F per piece. Not only this, the appellants also sought to re-export the same goods to Russia at an even higher unit price @ USD 5.10 C&F per piece. Thus the appellants have sought to inflate the value by more than thirteen times of the value declared for the very same goods in Dubai. Exhaustive enquiries have further established that the purported overseas supplier M/s. Prestige General Trading, UAE existed neither as an importer nor as an exporter. 5.4 Every country including India, consistently encourages exports. With the intention of expo....