AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the declared value of the goods in the 4 shipping bills and redetermining the same has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. 2. M/s Zoom Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [the respondent] filed 4 shipping bills, each dated 18.07.2017, for export of Polyester fancy long scarves with Embroidery work to Jeddah claiming drawback under the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 [the 1995 Drawback Rules]. On examination of the impugned goods it was noticed that the goods were overvalued. Accordingly, the goods were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act] on a reasonable belief that the same were liable to confiscation. The total Fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s imposed on the respondent. The relevant portion of the order passed by the adjudicating authority is reproduced below: "13. In this case to finalize the provisional assessment these are the issues to be decided: (i) to re-determine the 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. As regards first issue i.e. to re-determine the FOB value of the export goods for drawback purpose, I am taking lower mean reported value per piece of the items i.e. Polyester fancy long scarves with tikli and latkan & Polyester fancy long scarves with Embroidery work @ Rs. 280/- as determined during market enquiry conducted by the department. The Authorized Repres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 06.03.2020 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the adjudicating authority. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below: "5.4 Now I come to the issue of rejection of declared value of export goods and redetermination of the same base on market enquiry. ***** 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in 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 & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yer & 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 Redetermination of value of export goods:- 5.6.1 The impugned order notes (Para 6) that the Appellant was unable to provide invoice/cost data in respect of impugned export goods under Rule 4/5 of CVR 2007 and thus valuation to be done based on market verification report under Rule 6 of CVR 2007. In this regard, I find force in the Appellant's contention that since they had named their suppliers, there was no reason to not supply the invoices under which th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned export goods on the basis of market enquiry was wrong and the declared value should be accepted." (emphasis supplied) 6. Ms. Jaya Kumari, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department, submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside. In this connection, learned authorized representative submitted that the adjudicating authority had correctly rejected the transaction the value and re-determined the transaction value of the export goods for the purposes of drawback and for this purpose learned authorized representative placed the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 7. Shri Devesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, supported the order pass....