TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms Act, 1962. II. I reject the claim of drawback amounting to Rs.5,33,080/- and ROSCTL amounting to Rs.12,40,165/- for the above shipping Bills. III. I confiscation of the Goods attempted to be exported vide Shipping Bills of as detailed in Table 1 above under Section 113 (i) (ia) &(ja) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to exporter to redeem the above goods on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs.12,,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of shut out on payment of applicable charges and duties. IV. I impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on M/s.RG Star Knit Exports under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962. V. I impose a penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) on M/s.RG Star Knit exports under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. VI. I impose a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on Shri C. Dinesh Babu under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962." 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the trading of knitted garments like Men's Vest, Brief, T-Shirts, Pyjamas and the related. The appellant procured expor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he value furnished by the exporter, was accepted by the examining and export assessment officers of Customs continental CFS, who had duly issued the Let Export Order on 29.7.2022. The export goods were loaded into the container at Continental Warehousing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. under the supervision of Superintendent of Customs and moved to Chennai Port for loading into the vessel. When the container was about to be loaded in the vessel, it was stopped by the officials of DIU under the pretext of detailed examination by issuing a letter to the appellant and thereafter, the goods were examined and a mahazar dated 4.8.2022 was drawn by the officials of the DIU indicating the total number of cartons, quantity declared in the seven shipping bills and also the description of the goods declared in all the shipping was tallied in full and the officials of DIU drew representative samples for each category item Thereafter, the destuffed cargo was handed over to the custodian Continental CFS-I for safe custody and a summon was issued to the appellant for recording his statement and thereafter the appellant and his Manager appeared whose statement was recorded. A seizure memo was issued by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.2,51,85,118/- declared in the impugned seven shipping bills. He further submits that no comparison with the identical or similar goods have been made as mandated under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. No comparison with the NIDB data of the appellant's declared value with the other exporters have been made. He further submits that though samples have been drawn for each category of export goods sought to be exported, no market enquiries have ever been made by the DIU and further, the sample of export goods have not been sent to agencies functioning under the control of Apparel Export Promotion Council to ascertain the quality of the goods under the impugned shipping bills. He further submits that the Revenue has reduced the price to Rs.100/- for Men's vest Rs.150/- for Men's T-shirt and Rs.250/- for Men's Pyjamas without any legal basis. He further submits that the price adopted by the DIU may not be able to take care of even stitching charges of these garments. He further submits that failure of the DIU to allow export of goods has caused huge loss to the appellant when the goods sought to be exported was not a prohibited goods and the DIU should have allowed the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of application of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007. Rule 3 was ignored brazenly. (d) Goods have been procured from GST registered unit which had discharged GST on the supplied goods. (e) The procurement price was Rs.2,49,19,544/- as against FOB value of Rs.2,51,85,118/-, the Drawback of Rs.5,33,080/- and ROSCTL of Rs.12,40,165/- providing total margin for the export operations. (f) When the principal reason of the DIU was that the supply chain was manipulated, no investigation was carried out at the end of the unit which had supplied goods to the appellant. (g) The case rested only on the statements made by the manager and appellant with no supporting corroborative evidence. (h) No attempt was made to compare with NIDB data. (i) Samples have not been sent to textile labs/Apparel Export Promotion Council to check the quality and price of export goods. (j) No market enquiry was conducted to ascertain the correct price of the goods. (k) No opinion was taken from Export houses / traders conversant in the field to justify the prices arrived arbitrarily by the DIU. 9. Further....