TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals)] by which the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the declared value of the goods in the 13 shipping bills and redetermining the same has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. 2. M/s Bha Exim Pvt. Ltd. [the respondent] filed 13 shipping bills, each dated 07.09.2017, for export of Polyester Fancy Pray Mat (size 70cm x 115cm), Polyester Fancy Big Hand Bag with Shoulder Strap claiming drawback under the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 [the 1995 Drawback Rules]. On examination of the impugned goods it was noticed that the goods were mis-declared and overvalued. Accordingly, the goods were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act] on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der passed by the adjudicating authority is reproduced below: "19. In this case, the following issues are to be decided: (i) re-determination of FOB value of the export goods for drawback purpose, and (ii) whether the exporter is liable to penalty u/s. 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. 19.1 As regards, the first issue i.e. to re-determine the FOB value of the export goods for drawback purpose, I am taking lowest market value per piece for Polyester Fancy Pray Mat @ 618 per piece against exported price of Rs. 762/- per Pcs & Rs. 952/- (15 USD) per Sq. Mtr., Polyester Fancy Pray Mat @ Rs. 665/- per piece exported at Rs. 860/- per Pcs. & Rs. 1075/- (16.95 USD) per Sq. Mtr., Polyester Fancy Big Hand Bag @ Rs. 313....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 12.03.2020, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the adjudicating authority. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below: "5.4.2 ***** Thus, the assessing officer has to first have cogent reasons to reject the declared value, convey the same to the exporter and ask further information and then decide to reject or accept the declared value. In this context, it is also noted that Rule 8 of CVR 2007 is worded on similar lines as Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which applies to imported goods. Hon&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relation to the imported goods. Thus, the proper officer has to record reasons in writing which have to be communicated when requested. (h) The importer has to be given opportunity of hearing before the proper officer finally decides the transactional value in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. These guidelines are squarely applicable to Rule 8 of CVR 2007. ***** Thus rejection of declared value and redetermination of value of export goods has to be a two steps process. In light of this background, I proceed to examine whether the impugned order rejecting the declared value of export goods & re- determining the same on the basis of market enquiry alone is correct & legal? 5.5 Reje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bag (37cm x 33 cm) 428/piece 353/piece 21 Thus the declared value is 21 to 36% higher than market value which can not be termed to be significantly higher than the market value and can not be a cogent reason to reject the declared value. 5.5.3 There is not a whisper in the impugned order that the declared price is not the the Customs Act, 1962. No evidence or finding has been given that the buyer & the Appellant were related or there was any cash flow or money dealing between them which could have affected the transaction between them in respect of export goods. ***** 5.5.4 Thus I find that rejection of declared value under Rule 8 of CVR was not proper & legal. ***** 5.6.3 Thus ....