SIDDHARTH EXPORTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from Order -in -Original No. 55/2005 dated 30 -11 -2005 by which the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin has confirmed the allegations made in the show cause notice with regard to overvaluation of the goods to claim DEPB credit under Sl. No. 43(a) of Product Group Code 89 of DEPB Schedule. The details of the shipping bills filed by the CHA have been noted in the order. The Commissioner examined the various pleas raised by the appellants and the CHA and after due consideration rejected their pleas and also did not accept their declared value. The goods were re -valued after final assessment and the value was fixed at Rs.16 per meter for DEPB purposes. The nominal penalty of Rs. 5,20,000/ - has been imposed on M/s. Siddarath Exports under Section 114(i) and Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants had declared the value in respect of all the shipping bills amounting to Rs. 1,33,96,883/ -. The findings recorded by the Commissioner from Paragraph 23 are reproduced herein below. FINDINGS

(2.) THE learned Counsel argued at length on various aspects of the findings. He referred to the various grounds and contended that there was no overvaluation of the goods for DEPB purposes. He submits that the declared price is a correct price and they have not overvalued the goods as alleged. He submitted that they have received the export orders at the same price at which it was declared. Revenue has wrongly relied on the declaration of ARE -I Forms. He submits that the Departments reliance on purchase bills to justify the enhancement of the price in terms of the Surat Market is without any basis, as Surat is a far off place. He submits that the department has not applied their mind and revision of price is not justified. They cannot deny the benefit of DEPB claim. The reliance of market enquiries made by the department has been done against their back and violates the Principles of Natural Justice. He also submits that the Commissioner was not justified in relying on the CBEC Circular No. 10/97 -Cus., dated 17 -4 -1997. He submits that the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of MVT International v. CC, New Delhi as reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 258 (Tribunal) should have been accepted. He also submits that reliance on Om Prakash Bhatias case is not justified, as the said judgment relates to overvaluation of the goods. He submits that the value declared by the appellant at U $ 138000 was the sale value and not the market value. Therefore, the value should have been accepted. He relies on the judgment rendered in the case of Kobian ECN India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 662 (T) = 2004 (60) RLT 112; J. G. Exports v. CC, New Delhi - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 754 (Tribunal -LB); Dear Impex v. CC, Mumbai - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 611 (T) = 2004 (63) RLT 656 (CESTAT -Mum.) and Shilpi Exports v. CC, Calcutta - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 302 (Tri.). The learned Counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) THE learned JDR submits that the goods were tested and it was found that they were of inferior quality and in damaged condition. There was mis -declaration of the weight and gramage and market enquiries were also conducted with the help of reputed manufacturers, merchants and processors. The show cause notice referred to entire evidence and the appellants were given the opportunity to contest the matter. Therefore, there is no violation of Principles of Natural Justice. He submits that this very issue was subject matter of decision in the case of M/s. Olympia Overseas and Others heard by Presidents Bench by Final Order Nos. 1123 and 1124/2007 dated 14 -9 -2007 [2008 (223) E.L.T. 114 (T)]. He submits that the facts being identical, this judgment having been distinguished all facts of the citations referred by the learned Counsel should be accepted. He submits that no benefit has been given even with regard to the penalty. He places a copy of the order.