TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (9) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Act, 1962. The allegation against M/s. Sourabh Overseas Traders, Kundapur is that they had filed shipping bill bearing No. 22068 dtd. 3-6-99, for export of ready-made garments viz, 'shirt half sleeves woven' under DEPB Scheme, declaring FOB value of Rs. 16,24,679/- i.e. Rs. 329/- per piece. Physical examination of the goods at ICD, Bangalore revealed that the goods were of inferior quality and not commensurate with the value declared in the shipping bill. Hence, the goods were seized under a Mahazar dtd. 23-6-99. The Apparel Export Promotion Council and Clothing Manufacturing Association was requested to inspect the goods and appraise the valuation report dtd. 2-7-99, opinion that the samples examined by them indicate that the goods were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the parameters specified therein, I fix the value at Rs. 50/- per piece. Thus, the overvaluation, is to the extent of Rs. 13,75,079/- for availing excess DEPB credit. 10. Shri K. Sripada Upadhyaya, Proprietor of M/s. Sourabh Overseas Traders, Kundapur, has wilfully suppressed the factual position and deliberately misdeclared the value in the shipping bill filed under Sec. 50 of the Customs Act, 1962, thus rendering the goods liable for confiscation under provision of Sec. 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the seized goods have been provisionally released, the issue relating to imposing redemption fine in lieu of confiscation will be considered and taken care at the time....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. Sourabh Overseas Traders, Kundapur under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962. (d) I impose penalty of Rs. 1 lakh (Rs. One lakh only) on Shri Ramesh Hegde of M/s. Soundharya International, Madiwala under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962." 2. The findings recorded in Order-in-Original No. 9/99 in Paras 11 to 15 is also recorded herein below :- "11. I have carefully gone through the records of the case and the submissions made by the concerned parties and also the depositions in their statements recorded under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegation against M/s. Matey Toe, Latheefabi Compound, Kabettu, Karkala is that they had filed shipping bill bearing No. 22066 and 22067 both dtd. 3-6-99 for exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion of the concerned parties, it is evident that the allegation about over-invoicing stands admitted and this is also corroborated by the independent opinion of one of the leading garment exporting agency viz., The Clothing Manufacturers' Association of India, who are in the trade for the past 25 years. As a result, the charge of over-invoicing stands clearly established. During the course of personal hearing, by Shri Siraj Hussain, had requested for upward revision of value. As already held, the value of the shirt is Rs. 50/- per piece as admitted by the exporter himself. Therefore the question of any upward revision of value is not warranted for any reason. By taking into consideration the provisions of Sec.14 of the Customs Act, 1962 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....:- (a) The 7,778 Nos. of ready-made garments (shirts half sleeves woven) seized on 23-6-99, under a Mahazar, from M/s. Matey Tone, Karkala, are liable for confiscation under Sec. 113 of the Customs Act, 1962. As the goods have been provisionally released, the question of imposing fine in lieu of confiscation, will be considered while imposing penalty on the proprietor of firm. (b) The revised value is redetermined to be Rs. 50/- per piece, under Sec. 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, for credit purpose in terms of Para 7.36A of the Handbook of Procedures (1997-2002). (c) I impose penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs (Rs. Four Lakhs only) on Shri Siraj Hussain, Proprietor of M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the issue pertaining to over-invoicing in identical facts and circumstances of the case has been dealt with by the Larger Bench in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia v. CC, Delhi [2001 (127) E.L.T. 81 (Tri. - LB)] has held that over-invoicing of the goods for exportation is an offence under the Customs Act. He produced a copy of the Larger Bench judgment and further submitted that the Larger Bench judgment has been confirmed by the Apex Court as reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. A177. He also referred to the judgment of Steel Tubes of India v. CC, Trichy [2001 (133) E.L.T. 471 (Tri. - Chennai)] wherein also over-invoicing or misdeclaration was held to be an offence and penalty imposed has been upheld. He submitted that the appeal is required to be....