TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue being common in these appeals the same were heard together and are being disposed by this order. 2. Heard Ms. Maithili, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Assistant Commissioner, for the Respondent 3. The facts of the case are that the Appellants are manufacturers of viscose yarn and cotton blends. They are availing the export incentives under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (Post exports) scheme. The appellants are exporting their goods through Custom House, Tuticorin. On specific intelligence, the Officers of the DRI, Regional Unit, Coimbatore, scrutinized the records of the appellant during June 2010 and scrutinized the documents, files registers relating to the payment of freight actually made to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reight charges and in any event cannot be deducted from the FOB value declared in the shipping bills. • BAF and CAF charges are contingent charges, which do not form part of the freight charges. • The shipping liners/freight forwarders sometimes seek compensation for an unexpected/sharp increase in the cost of freight, which could be due to various reasons such as increase in fuel cost or change in route, on account of a detour forced to be taken by the ship etc.; that the compensation for these additional expenses, which is known only after the goods reach the destination are known as Bunker Adjustment Factor (BAF). • The CIF value declared by the Appellant is the actual value at the time of export, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extracted supra, in a nutshell, is that the importer/appellant had obtained DEPB scripts of a higher value than what it was entitled to. To arrive at this allegation, the Department has alleged that the CAF and BAF are required to be deducted from CIF, admittedly, which was not done by the Appellant. 6. The recovery of the above has been made by the Revenue under Section 28 of the Customs Act. On this aspect, we find that in the following orders, the Benches have held that the recovery of an alleged over valuation of DEPP is not permissible under Section 28 Supra: - 1. TTK Prestige Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore 2005(188) E.L.T. 385(Tri.-Bang.) "7....Another important point is that the Customs authorities do not h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Shipping Bills. It has been consistently held by this Tribunal that DEPB credit is not a duty and the same cannot be realized under Section 28 of the Customs Act vide Rammapati Exports (supra). By now, it is also settled law that the power to recover DEPB credit wrongly availed by an exporter is vested in DGFT vide Kobian ECS India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai-2003 (157) ELT 662 (Tri-Mumbai), Dear Impex v Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2004 (175) E.LT. 611 (Tri-Mumbai), Suresh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2005 (179) ELT 466 (Tri-Mumbai) and TTK Prestige Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore - 2005 (188) ELT 385 (Tri-Bang.)...." 7. Also, it has been held in the above cases that the proper authority i....