Page 219 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] RBT EXPORTS PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA 265

followed then there is no evidence of market value of export consignment other
then the report of CLRI to arrive at the transaction value. Thus, this value is not
acceptable for the export consignment. For this, we refer and rely on the decision
of the Tribunal in the case of R. Kishan and Company v. Commissioner of Customs
(Export), Nhava Sheva; [2016 (331) E.L.T. 91 (Tri.-Mumbai)] wherein it is held as
under :
“8. We have considered the matter in the light of the above contentions.
9. The first contention of the appellant herein to the effect that the FOB
value being 450% more than the purchase value is unreasonable and cannot
be accepted for the simple reason that there is no evidence on record to
support such a contention. The Tribunal has also specifically held so and re-
turned a final finding of fact that the FOB price was correctly shown by the
assessee. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not show us anything
concrete in support of his contention. From the orders of the first and the
appellate authorities nothing can be found to hold that the FOB price was
excessive or not genuine. The Tribunal has also given a finding that the Ad-
judicating Authority has arbitrarily computed the FOB value and have
fixed the credit on that basis. We accept findings of the Tribunal in the ab-
sence of any concrete evidence having been put to support the contention of
the Learned Counsel that the FOB price is inflated. In this behalf we cannot
ignore the documents supplied by the assessee before the Revenue which
we have already mentioned earlier. It is not a case of the Revenue that the
assessee has not received the FOB price at all. That is clear from the BRCs.
Therefore, the FOB price is supported amply by the BRCs with which no
fault is found. Once that is clear, there will be no question to hold that the
FOB is inflated.
10. As per the policy also the credit has to be linked with the FOB price.
Again we cannot ignore the fact that the PMV is also correctly fixed and is
within the permissible limits i.e. 150% of AR4 value. The market value is
fixed at Rs. 52.50. That has also been found to be in order by the Tribunal.
Therefore, we accept the finding of the Tribunal in this behalf and reject the
contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revenue”.
We have already held that the report of CSRI-CLRI is not the fair price of the
goods as CLRI is not competent agency to decide present market value of export
consignment. In holding so we place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Commissioner of Customs, New Customs House, Mumbai v. Vishal
Exports Overseas Ltd., [2007 (209) E.L.T. 331 (S.C.)], the paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of
which are relevant is as follows :
“9. The first contention of the appellant herein to the effect that the FOB
value being 450% more than the purchase value is unreasonable and cannot
be accepted for the simple reason that there is no evidence on record to
support such a contention. The Tribunal has also specifically held so and re-
turned a final finding of fact that the FOB price was correctly shown by the
assessee. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not show us anything
concrete in support of his contention. From the orders of the first and the
appellate authorities nothing can be found to hold that the FOB price was
excessive or not genuine. The Tribunal has also given a finding that the Ad-
judicating Authority has arbitrarily computed the FOB value and have
fixed the credit on that basis. We accept findings of the Tribunal in the ab-
sence of any concrete evidence having been put to support the contention of
the Learned Counsel that the FOB price is inflated. In this behalf we cannot
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  235