Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. On merits, Shri K. Narayanan, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the charges levelled against the appellants in the Show Cause Notice are not proved. In other words, he submitted that the findings of the Collector of Customs that the contract produced for shipment was not a genuine one and that the value declared in the shipping documents was under-valued and did not represent the full export value of the goods as required Under Section 18(1)(a) of FERA, 1973, are not tenable. In reply, Shri Bhatia, supported the order and adopted the same reasonings which are recorded in the impugned order. Before we proceed to consider the respective contentions of the parties, it would be useful to state that Under Section 18(1) (a) of RERA, 1973, read with Government of India Notification G.S.R. 78 dated 1-1-1974, and the Rules made thereunder it was obligatory for the appellants to declare the full export value of the goods tendered for export in the shipping documents. The main purpose and object of the said Section 18(1) is to get a declaration from the exporter that he has either brought or will bring back the amount representing the full export value of the goods exported. In the said Shipping Bills the appellants have declared the full export value of the cashew kernels as per their alleged Contract No. TCF -1086 dated 6-7-1979. It was the case of the Department that the Contract No. TCF -1086 against which the 1000 cartons of 320 grade cashew kernels were attempted to be exported vide Shipping Bill No. 1646 and 1647 dated 17-1-1980 was deliberately pre-dated to indicate that it was made on 6th July, 1979, when the prices were at the lowest range to substantiate the low price quoted therein, for the purpose of rigging the price of cashew kernels brought for export with the sole purpose of transfering the extra foreign exchange from India to Singapore for promoting the business interest of appellant Shri K. Janardhanan Pillai and his son abroad. It is under these circumstances that the controversy as to whether the said Contract No. TCF -1086 was a fictitious document or an antedated, or both assumed the importance.

The Adjudicating Authority after the usual adjudication proceedings on the basis of the evidence on record both oral and documentary concluded that the said Contract No. TCF -1086 dated 6-7-1979, was a fictitious and antedated document and the price declared in the Shipping Bills for shipment at the rate of U.S. $ 1.90/lb on the basis of the said fictitious and antedated document was deliberately mis-declared when it ought to have been at the rate of U.S. $. 2.50/Ib, being the real price at which the goods were sold. For this conclusion, the Adjudicating Authority relied on the statements made by the appellant, K. Janardhanan Pillai and the various employees of the appellants company. While concluding so, the Adjudicating Authority also relied upon the various tell tale circumstances on record; to wit, absence of the signature of one of the parties to the contract, erasions in the date of the contract, absence of any corresponding correspondence supporting the said Contract, various correspondence including telex messages exchanged between the parties and the total absence of any other evidence except ipse dixit of the appellants that the Contract was struck on phone, the close relationship and the mutual interest of all the appellants among themselves, etc., which are detailed out in the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order. Shri K. Narayanan, challenged the aforesaid incriminating circumstances against the appellants. Before we proceed to deal with the respective contentions of the parties, it would be useful to state the following admitted facts -

29. On the question of under-valuation in the Shipping Bills, Shri K. Narayanan, counsel for the appellants contended that it is not proved that the appellants failed to give the true statements of the full export value in their G.R. 1 Form and the Shipping Bills presented by them for shipment as required Under Section 18(1) (a) of FERA., 1973. In the process, he submitted that the full export value was declared in the Shipping Bills as per contract No. TCF-1086. He also contended that the price of 320 grades white wholes declared in the Shipping Bills at the rate of U.S. $ 1 90/lb was in accordance with the said contract No. TCF-1086 and it was also the prevalent price at the time of executing the contract. In this connection, he drew our attention to the chart showing details of the shipments made during November/December, 1979 and also to a certificate said to be issued by the Cashew Export Promotion Council, Cochin. As regards the price mentioned in the said Contract No. TCF-1086, no reliance can be placed as the same was a fictitious and antedated document as held by the Adjudicating Authority and confirmed by us as stated above. As regards the chart showing the details of shipments made during November/December, 1979, from Cochin Port, no help can be taken because presumably the prices must have been declared according to the contract/contracts made between the parties concerned. Further, these prices so far as the grade 320 cashew kernels are concerned relate to November and December, 1979, and not of January, 1980 when the cashew kernels in question were attempted to be exported. From the certificate said to have been issued by the Cashew Export Promotion Council, it appears that as per the New York market quotations (C & F basis) the prices of the cashew kernels of 320 grades white wholes were around U.S. $ 1.96/1.98/Ib., but from the said certificate it also appears that the price of the same grade and quality of cashew kernels was U.S. $ 2.25 in November, 1979, and U.S. $ 2.30 in December, 1979. These prevailing prices in November and December, 1979 also go against the appellants. On the other hand, the Department has also produced the chart showing the price prevailing during 1979 and 1980. From the chart, we observe that the appellants M/s. Raj Mohan Cashews Ltd., on account of M/s. Janso Exports Pvt. Ltd., exported 500 cartons of the cashew kernels of the same grade x at the rate of U.S. $ 2.48/lb. to Australia on 24-1-1980 and during January, 1980, the prices were either U.S. $ 2.45 or 2.55/lb. In the instant case, the Adjudicating Authority has held on the basis of the telex messages recovered from the appellants that the price declared for shipment should have been the real price at which the goods were sold at the relevant time, that is to say, it should have been U.S. $ 2.50/lb. Shri K. Narayanan, in the process also submitted that the telex messages exchanged between the appellant K. Janardhanan Pillai and Morris Mathais of M/s. 20th Century Foods Pvt. Ltd., have been wrongly construed. From the records we observe that in the telex messages Morris Mathais has stated that he has sold 1000 cartons at thetate of U.S. $ 2.50/lb as desired by Shri Rajan, who is the son of the appellant K. Janardhanan Pillai and also is the Chairman of the purchaser, M/s. 20th Century Foods Pvt. Ltd., Singapore, in question. As quoted above, the Collector of Customs has held that these 1000 cartons are the same as presented for shipment under the cover of the Shipping Bills No. 1646 and 1647 dated 17-1-1980 by quoting a price of U.S. $ 1.90/lb. In the telex message, the query by Shri Morris Mathais, would you like us to try for further 1000 320s at the rate of U.S. $ 2.55 clearly indicates that the sales done by Shri Morris Mahais was on behalf of shipper in India and this can be treated as in terms of the agency agreement between the seller and M/s. 20th Century Foods Pvt. Ltd., (the agency agreement was not disputed before us). Thus, under these circumstances, the finding of the Adjudicating Authority that the full export value for shipment should have been the real price at which the goods were sold, that is to say, U.S. $ 2.50/lb, is correct. At any rate, it stands proved that the price declared by the appellants as U.S. $ 1.90/lb was not the full export value. Consequently, by quoting a much less price of U.S. $ 1.90/lb under the cover of fictitious and antedated contract No. TCF-1086, the appellants have clearly contravened the provisions of Section 18(1) of FERA., 1973, by not giving true statement of the full export value in G.R. 1 Form and the Shipping Bills presented by them for shipment, and this under valuation in the Shipping Bills is the apparent reason for fabricating and antedating the alleged contract No. TCF-1086, with a motive to transfer the extra foreign exchange earned from India to Singapore. Therefore, the goods in question were rightly confiscated.