Page 306 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

288 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
4. The Adjudicating Authority did not agree with the above contention
of the appellant and passed the impugned orders as detailed above. The said or-
der is challenged before the Tribunal.
5. The crux of the findings of the Commissioner’s order is that the ap-
pellant had not explained as to how the software malfunctioned and they should
have been careful while preparing export documents. This fact leads to the inevi-
table conclusion that the first set of the documents filed by the appellant was in-
advertently generated wrong set which is generated on account of computer and
software malfunctioning. It is also on record that appellant on being pointed out
by the CHA immediately placed the correct document before Customs Authority
on the same very date. In such set of circumstances, no mala fide can be attributed
to the assessee so as to confiscate the export consignment or to impose penalty
upon them. It cannot be out of place to mention here that the second set filed by
the appellants correctly covered all the aspects of the export consignment includ-
ing the quantity, quality description and value etc. As such, we are of the view
that the confiscation of the goods was not called for.
6. As regards the value of the goods, it is seen that the Commissioner
has gone by the market inquiries which fact by itself cannot be held to be suffi-
cient to reject the value of the exported goods. It is worth noticing that the appel-
lant has placed on record BRC’s indicating and evidencing the total realization of
the exported goods. The said fact has not been disputed by the Adjudicating Au-
thority. In this scenario, the value of the goods cannot be doubted and the de-
clared value has to be accepted. The drawback claim would be calculated at the
declared value and the appellant would be entitled to the same.
7. In view of the forgoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow
all the three appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Pronounced in open Court)
_______

Corrigendum to 1989 (43) E.L.T. 626 (Bom.)
There is misprint in the title details of case reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T.
626 (Bom.) (K. Govindaraj v. Central Board of Excise and Customs), as published in
Vol. 43, Page 626 of Excise Law Times. Accordingly the first seven lines of the
said case may be substituted by the following :

“1989 (43) E.L.T. 626 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Bhaktavatsalam, J.
K. GOVINDARAJ
Versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
W.P. No. 8985 of 1985, decided on 11-7-1989”

Readers are advised to make appropriate corrections in their copy.
Inconvenience caused due to this misprint, is deeply regretted.
________

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  306