LAWS(CE)-2002-10-158

DEEP INTERNATIONAL Vs. CC

Decided On October 04, 2002
Deep International Appellant
V/S
Cc Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this petition for stay came up for hearing it was agreed by both sides that the appeal itself can be disposed of, We, therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal.

(2.) The appellant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi dated 2.5.2002. The Shipping Bill Nos. 18158 and 18159 dated 27.7.99 were filed by the appellant for export of 45,000 pairs each of ladies chappals showing the FOB value at Rs. 32,60,862 and Rs. 33,98,063 respectively under claim for DEPB benefit at the rate of 20% at FOB. On examination of the goods it appeared that the declared market value was on the higher side. The export was allowed provisionally after drawal of samples for market enquiry to check the correctness of declared present market value. On market enquiry it was found that the value per pair was only Rs. 15 and Rs. 13 as against the declared value of Rs. 75.51 and Rs. 71. A show cause notice dated 22:10.99 was issued which was followed by a corrigendum dated 4.1.2000. The case was adjudicated initially under Order -in -Original No. BKG/CC/ICD/TKD/15/2000 dated 21/22.2.2000. the adjudicating authority held that the price determined during the market enquiry was correct and accordingly re -fixed the value of the goods. Apart from reducing the value of the goods for DEPB purpose and restricting the benefit of DEPB a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs was imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The party filed an appeal before this Tribunal. By Order dated 12.7.2000 this Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Commissioner after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant to make their submission. The Commissioner was also directed to furnish a copy of the market enquiry report to the appellant before the date of personal hearing. Thereafter the present order dated 2.5.2002 is issued.

(3.) The main contention in this appeal is that the appellant did not receive any notice for personal hearing and therefore, the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also alleged that the Commissioner did not furnish a copy of the market enquiry report to the appellant and this violated the direction given by this Tribunal. Certain contentions are raised against the market enquiry report also.