Page 215 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] RBT EXPORTS PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA 261

“This refers to Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) letters dated 3-11-
2016 and 6-12-2016 (copies enclosed). And your [letters/reports] 15-11-2016
and 14-12-2016 (copies enclosed). DRI had forwarded sealed samples of
leather garments to CSIR for testing and report.
DRI in its letter dated 6-12-2016 had requested for a detailed report on
the following points:
1. Opening the seal of the sample,
2. Determination of the quality of the material used in the sam-
ple (declared as Leather Waist Coat with Artificial fur),
3. The constitution of the product i.e. grade of leather and
type/nature of leather used,
4. The procedure for determining manufacturing cost to be indi-
cated approximately.
The second DRI letter dated 6-12-2016 was sent requesting for retest-
ing with another set of sealed sample forwarded because the CSIR-CLRI
report dated 15-11-2016 of the designated authority for the first sample test-
ed appeared suspicious as it indicated manufacturing cost as “USD 30 to
USD 40” which was not only in US dollars and not in Indian Rupees but al-
so matching the declared export value of the product being tested as de-
clared by the exporter in US dollars. The sample item on the other hand ap-
pears to be a very poor quality leather garment made by stitching up of var-
ious low quality cut piece leather trimmings.
In response CSIR-CLRI, Chennai sent its second report dated 14-12-
2016 which is effectively a copy of the earlier report dated 15-11-2016 with
the only change being giving the manufacturing cost in INR instead of USD
and addition of two lines towards the cost break-up.
This test result is in variance to DRIs internal findings on visual in-
spection of the garments and informal market opinion which indicated
their cheap quality and costing to be not more than Rs. 500-600 per piece
(manufacturing cost including the cost of material).
It is also brought to your notice that the exporter is quoting the value
suggested by CLRI in his representations to DRI which you may like to in-
vestigate at your end as it, appears that there is possibility of leakage of the
information to the exporter, which is prejudicial to the interest of investiga-
tion and as such to the interest of revenue, i.e., against public interest.
In view of the foregoing it is requested that a detailed report on the
points listed above be forwarded to DRI at the earliest, the matter being se-
rious and sensitive involving suspected attempt by the concered exporter to
avail of undue export promotion benefit including possibly influencing the
concerned staff at CSIR-CLRI in making a false test repost as said above.
The photographs of the garments in question are attached which may
be compared with the sample sent to CSIR-CLRI for investigations. DRI
will be obliged in case of your early response”.
14. From the perusal of this letter it is evident that the DRI has not ac-
cepted the report dated 15-11-2016, which indicated the price of export goods
within the range of US dollar 30 to US dollar 40 for the export product. The CLRI
report also indicated that considering the nature of sample and the quality of the
goods, the price is not correctly declared. It is also evident from the letter of the
Additional Director of DRI that report dated 14-12-2016 is not correct as the re-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  231