LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, MUMBAI versus M/S. VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, MUMBAI ~ v. MIS. VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LIMITED FEBRUARY 12, 2007 B [TARUN CHA TTERJEEANDV.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962: }- • - Export of coffee mugs at a price (FOB) $ 3. 4 per piece-Assessee . c availing benefits under Duty Entitlement Pass Book Benefit/Scheme- Proceedings against assessee on ground of misdeclaration of export price- Assessing authorities computing FOB@ Rs.801- per piece directing rissessee to claim benefit under the Scheme in terms of export price so fixed-Affirmed by Appellate Authority-Reversed by Tribunal-On appeal, Held: Revenue D authorities arbitrarily computed FOB and fzxed credit on that basis-FOB price supported amply by documentary evidence with which no fault found by Revenue-Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that FOB declared by assessee is inflated-Since present market value also correctly fzxed by ,_ assessees and same is within permissible limit, Tribunal rightly found it in ) ,.( E order-Assessee entitled to claim benefit under the scheme as per FOB price declared. Respondent-assessee exported 4.8 lakh pieces of coffee mugs at an export price (FOB) of US $3.40 per piece. The goods so exported were eligible for Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Benefit/Scheme. Accordingly, the F assessee claimed the benefit under the Scheme as per Rules. The assessee had declared a market value of Rs.52.50 per piece which was worked out at r-- 150% of the assessee's purchase price of Rs.35/- per piece. Revenue proceeded against the assessee by alleging that the assessee had mis-declared the FOB value at US $40 (Rs. 150/-) per piece to get more DEPB benefit under the Scheme. Revenue computed the FOB price @ Rs.80/- per piece and G ordered that the assessee would be entitled to DEPB credit on.the basis of the FOB price ofRs.80/- per piece and not at the sale price. Besides, the assessee .. was held liable for mis-declaration and accordingly the goods in question were ~ confiscated and the penalty under Section 11~ of the Customs Act was also imposed. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order in appeal filed by the H 426 'y- COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS. NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE. MU~IBAI ,. VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LTD. 427 assessee. On appeal, the Tribunal !Jet aside the orders of the Revenue A -~ authorities and allowed the appeal. Hence the present appeal. Revenue contended that there could not be such a vast variation in- between the domestic price of Rs. 35/- per piece and the declared FOB value ofRs.157/- per piece, therefore, it was obvious that the assessee had claimed B inflated price with the sole objective of getting undeserved DEPB credit; that the Tribunal had not taken into consideration the evidence on record regarding the price; and that the matter was completely covered by a decision of this Court in Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi. -7' Respondent-assessee submitted that it was unthinkable that the party c to which the exports were made would act hand-in-glove with the assessee to make inflated payments to enable him to get undeserved DEPB credit; that the fixing of price of the goods at Rs.80/- per piece by the Adjudicating Authority as also by the Commissioner (Appeals) was based on no evidence; and that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the finding that the export price is not genuine and was mis-declared with the intent to avail higher DEPB D benefit. Dismissing the appeal, the Court i' ; HELD: 1.1. The contention of the Revenue to the effect that the FOB value of the goods in question being 450% more than the purchase value is E -I unreasonable and cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there is no evidence on record to support such a contention. The Tribunal has also specifically held so and returned a final finding of fact that the FOB price was correctly shown by the assessee. Revenue could not show anything concrete in support of its contention. From the orders of the appellate F authorities nothing can be found to hold that the FOB price was excessive or -~ not genuine. The Tribunal has also given a finding that the Adjudicating Authority has arbitrarily computed the FOB value and have fixed the credit on that basis. In the absence of any concrete evidence having been put by Revenue to support the contention that the FOB price is inflated, the findings of the Tribunal are accepted. (Para 9) (430-H; 431-A-B) G 1.2.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.