TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (10) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(a) When the value of the exported goods declared by the consignees in the UAE in the "Import bill" filed by them, which was procured through Consulate General of India in UAE, was compared with the FOB value of the same goods declared by the Appellant in the respective shipping bills, the import value declared by the consignee in the UAE were found to be about 1/25th of the FOB value declared by the Appellant in the shipping bills, and this indicates that very cheap and inferior quality goods were being exported by the Appellants by heavily overinvoicing the same, with intention to fraudulently claim duty drawback, and (b) Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, who is running the Appellant-firm in the name of his uncle Shri Ram Prakash Gupta, has, in hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... garments to M/s. Saeed Al Mutorshi Trading, UAE and three consignments of Socks to M/s. Hassan Abdullah Trading Co., UAE. The goods were allowed clearance after proper scrutiny and examination as the exports had been made under drawback claim. The Appellant have received the export proceeds in their bank account with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. (2) So far as shipments of Ready-made Garments are concerned, except for one photocopy of declaration filed by the consignee before Dubai Customs, which is also unsigned and unattested, the Department has not produced any material evidence to challenge the price of ready-made garments declared by the Appellants. In respect of shipment of Socks, even the consignee's declaration is not prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is 450% of the local purchase price of Rs. 35/- per piece. Same view has been taken by the Tribunal in case of Guru Nanak Exports v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 277. (6) In view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in case of Priya Blue Inds. Ltd. v. CC reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) held that assessment cannot be reopened without review of shipping bill assessment. The Tribunal in case of Vittesse Export Import v. Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion), Mumbai, reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 241 has held that when during the assessment of the shipping bill, the declared FOB value and PMV were reduced by the assessing officer and this assessment was not challenged by the Department by filing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....brics. The bills of the fabricators who are claimed to have made the garments, bear the dates after the dates of exports, which indicates that the same are bogus. (4) The assessments can be re-opened in the cases of fraud. In this regard, reliance is placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of UOI v. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) wherein it was held that SCN under Sect 28 of the Customs Act can be issued for demand of duty without revising under Section 130, the clearance order passed under Section 47, if the clearance order had been obtained by fraud. (5) The redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 is imposable even if the goods held to be liable for confiscation under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Bills No.1185057 d 19-10-01, 1185137 dt. 19-10-01 and 1185243 dt. 20-10-01, in which the value of the goods, based on a parallel invoice issued by the Appellant, has been declared as US$ 6380 FOB, as against the value of US$ 1,76,595 in the three shipping bills filed before customs authorities in India, and (b) statement dt. 10-5-2002 of Shri Vinod Gupta of the Appellant's firm, recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also the fact that in spite of having been given ample opportunity, Shri Vinod Gupta could not produce the purchase invoice in respect of the socks and the fabrics used for making the garments exported. 3.1 The Appellant's plea, on the other hand, is that just on the basis of the declaration filed by the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; Co., UAE. We, therefore, agree with the Commissioner's finding that the goods have been grossly overinvoiced by the Appellant with intention to claim higher drawback and the PMV of the goods is much lower than the drawback claimed and therefore, in terms of the provisions of Section 76(1)(b) of the Customs Act, no drawback is admissible and the drawback paid to the Appellant is recoverable from them. 3.3 We do not accept the Appellant's plea that in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in case of M/s. Priya Blue Ind. Ltd. (supra), the drawback cannot be recovered without reviewing the shipping bill assessment, as, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. (supra), this principle is not applicable....