FROST INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. CC, MUMBAI (EXPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issues raised in these appeals are identical. They relate to drawback claimed by the exporter on export of Rotomac Ball Pens to Russia. Price of each pen was stated to be Rs.8.12. On that basis, drawback was claimed. The export price having been found to be too excessive, exporters were allowed to clear the goods provisionally. Subsequently, on enquiry it was found that retail sale of same model of ball pens was of Rs.4.30 per pen in retail market while its price in the wholesale market was only Rs.1.97 per pen. On this basis it was found that the value was mis -declared in violation of the prohibitions contained in Section 11 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, which is punishable under section 113 of the Customs Act. On this basis penalties were imposed on the exporters and the drawback claimed was limited to that which is available on pen valued at Rs.1.97 per piece.

(2.) MAIN argument advanced by the Learned Counsel representing the appellant is one of violation of principles of natural justice. Documents sought to be relied upon by the Department were not supplied, in spite of specific requests made for that purpose. It is also contended by the appellant that the officer who heard the exporters on 10.11.98 did not pass the impugned orders before relinquishing charge of that office. On coming to know of relinquishment of charge of that officer, exporters asked for fresh hearing by the new incumbent to the office by letter dated 28.8.2000. On getting that letter officer who relinquished charge signed Order -in -Original No.496/2000 by ante -dating it to 26.6.2000. According to Learned Counsel, while issuing Order -in -Original No.1424/2000 the said procedure was not carried out intelligently by the officer because the first page of the order gave the name of the succesor -in -office as the one who passed the order. On these grounds Learned Counsel vehemently contended that the orders impugned in these appeals are passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) IT is the common case of the parties that Rotomac Ball Pens were exported to Russia under two sets of export documents in March 1997. Sale price of each pen was fixed therein at Rs.8.12 per pen. They were allowed to be provisionally exported because the Department entertained doubt regarding actual value of the pens exported. Thereafter, Department conducted enquiries regarding actual value of the pen. On coming to know that the value is far below the amount mentioned in the export documents, show cause notice dated 9.7.98 was issued. The said show cause notice (in Frost International case) was silent about the value of the pen because those portions were kept blank; but towards the close of the show cause notice parties were asked to state why value should not be fixed at Rs.1.97 per pen.