Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. During the period January and February, 1999 M/s. Select Impex Ltd., the first respondent herein exported 1957 Quartz Analog Watches with 22 ct. Gold chain/straps to Hong Kong via Dubai under 31 Shipping Bills. There was a claim for DEPB benefit. Before effecting exports Select Impex Ltd. had obtained permission from Bombay Customs for examination and stuffing of the goods into the container at its factory premises. The first consignment after examination by Central Excise Officers were sealed in a steel trunk and brought to docks. In respect of the first lot of 27 watches since there was no examination report endorsed on the invoice by the Central Excise Officers the goods were examined at the docks by the Customs Officers. After examination 25 watches were allowed to be exported provisionally after detaining two watches, namely one wrist watch and one pocket watch for market enquiry to ascertain present market value. Second, third and fourth lot of watches were allowed to be exported without any examination by the Customs officers based on examination report endorsed on the reverse of the export invoices by the Central Excise officers. The last consignment of three Quartz Analog Watches sought to be exported under Shipping Bill dated 9-2-99 was detained on 10-2-99 by the DRI Officers. After detailed enquiry show cause notice dated 9-2-2000 was issued alleging misdeclaration of the goods with respect to their description and value. On 27-10-2000 an addendum to the show cause notice was also issued. Allegations in the show cause notice were that -

(1) 1957 Quartz Analog Watches (except Design No. W-127 in Shipping Bill No. 1000 3571, dated 7-1-99) exported under 31 shipping bills are to be considered as pocket watches with a value of Rs. 730/- each and commodity code as 91029101 as per ITC (HS) classification.
(2) chains exported with the said 1956 watches should be considered as articles of jewellery with commodity code as 7113190109 ITC (HS) classification. 
 (3)     value of the goods should be reassessed.  
 

 (4)      1957 watches already exported are liable to be confiscated under Sections 113(d) and 113(1) of the Customs Act.

4. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the Commissioner has come to a wrong conclusion that the department had not discharged the burden to prove that 1956 watches out of 1957 Quartz Analog watches exported by the first respondent were pocket watches and that their gold chain weighed 15 gms. each. According to the Revenue, there was sufficient materials before the Commissioner by way of statements of persons involved in the transaction and also the statements of departmental officers who claimed that they have seen the pocket watches in the first consignment. The Revenue also submits that the department had adduced sufficient evidence which would go to show the claim of the first respondent that it had used 328.44 Kgs. of gold for manufacturing the chains or straps for 1957 watches was unsustainable. There was no material before the Commissioner, submits the appellant, to show that gold alleged to have been purchased by the first respondent from Mangalore, Bangalore and Ahmed-abad had as a matter of fact reached Mumbai. It is further contended that the Commissioner has wrongly placed the burden on the department to prove that the first respondent had purchased 1956 pocket watches for being exported after fitting them with gold chains,

5. The appellant would submit that on the question of valuation also the Commissioner has erred in entering a finding that the department had not adduced any evidence that identical or similar watches were sold at lower value in international market or in the local market.

6. Before we go into a discussion in detail regarding the several grounds taken in these appeals, we may refer to certain admitted facts in this case noted by the Commissioner in the order impugned -

(1) Export of 1956 Quartz Analog watches (alleged to be pocket watches) attached with gold chains is not disputed.