S.G. International Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that detention of export goods in excess of 3 days without bringing to notice of the Commissioner of Customs/ Chief Commissioner of Customs is unlawful and untenable in law.
Facts- The Appellants had exported goods of FOB value of Rs. 6,40,08,136.70/- claiming total drawback for Rs.11,71,805/-, refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) of Rs.42,32,438/- and Refund of State Levies (ROSL) of Rs.6,91,458/- being taxes/duties suffered on the export products. The goods covered by the shipping bills were duly assessed and cleared for export by Customs following the due procedure. The drawback, IGST refund and ROSL amounts as indicated above have been paid to the appellants after the “Let Export Order” grant and shipment of the goods for export.
On the basis of certain intelligence that the exporter had mis-declared the description of the goods and overvalued the exports to avail of an inadmissible higher amount of drawback, refund of IGST, ROSL, the Commissioner (General), JNCH, Nhava Sheva had directed the custodian CFS-JWR, Panvel to put on hold the goods exported by the appellants vide his letter dated 25.10.2018. However, it was reported by the Custodian that the goods have already been gated out from Container Freight Station (CFS) and were found to have been already shipped on board to Lagos by Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd., in container No. MSKU0011063 on 30.10.2018. The shipping line was then directed by the Commissioner vide letter dated 7.11.2018, to recall back the container. As directed by the Commissioner the container was recalled back by the Shipping Lines on 29.03.2019.
The Additional Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva being the original authority had passed an Order-in-Original, wherein the assessable value was redetermined as Rs.2,34,42,440/- under Rule 6 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007; impugned export goods were confiscated u/s. 113 (i), 113 (i)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.20,00,000/-; imposition of penalty of Rs.40,00,000/- on the exporter u/s. 114(iii) ibid, and Rs.15,00,000/- on Shri Mohd. Siddique Muchhada, Power of Attorney holder u/s. 114AA ibid; besides the eligible drawback was reduced to Rs.5,25,786/- and other eligible refunds were restricted to lower amount than the one claimed by appellants such as IGST reduced to Rs.14,42,877/- from Rs.42,32,438/-, ROSL was reduced to Rs. 2,67,997/- from Rs.6,91,458/-, and MEIS benefits reduced to Rs.4,78,995/- from Rs.13,17,750/.
Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that goods could have been provisionally released to the appellants immediately after panchnama proceedings on 10.04.2019, for which the appellant had made request on 12.04.2019, in terms of Circular No 01/2011-Customs dated 4th January 2011. However, there was a failure on the part of Revenue to complete the proceedings early within the prescribed time frame which had not only affected the interests of the exporters, but has also impacted the revenue interests.
Thus, for the limited extent of determination of eligible amount of drawback, arising on account of change in drawback rate alone and not on account of redetermination of the FOB value, we remand the case back to the original authority for this limited purpose.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
These appeals have been filed by M/s S.G. International, the exporter and Shri Mohd. Sadique Muchhada, Power of Attorney holder of the said exporter (herein after, referred to as ‘the appellants’), assailing the Order- in-Appeal No. 732 & 733 (DBK)/2021(JNCH)/Appeals dated 20.09.2021 (herein after, referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai-II.
2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the Appellants had exported goods of FOB value of 6,40,08,136.70/- in eleven Shipping Bills (S/Bs), i.e., 2 S/Bs dated 20.10.2018 and balance 9 C/Bs, all dated 22.10.2018 claiming total drawback for Rs.11,71,805/-, refund of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) of Rs.42,32,438/- and Refund of State Levies (ROSL) of Rs.6,91,458/- being taxes/duties suffered on the export products. The goods covered by the shipping bills were duly assessed and cleared for export by Customs following the due procedure. The drawback, IGST refund and ROSL amounts as indicated above have been paid to the appellants after grant of “Let Export Order” and shipment of the goods for export.
2.2 Subsequent to the clearance of the goods for exports, on the basis of certain intelligence that the exporter have mis-declared the description of the goods and over valued the exports in order to avail of inadmissible higher amount of drawback, refund of IGST, ROSL, the Commissioner (General), JNCH, Nhava Sheva had directed the custodian CFS-JWR, Panvel to put on hold the goods exported by the appellants vide his letter dated 10.2018. However, it was reported by the Custodian that the goods have already been gated out from Container Freight Station (CFS) and were found to have been already shipped on board to Lagos by Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd., in container No. MSKU0011063 on 30.10.2018. The shipping line was then directed by the Commissioner vide letter dated 7.11.2018, to recall back the container. As directed by the Commissioner the container was recalled back by the Shipping Lines on 29.03.2019.
2.3 On 04.2019, the appellants had requested Customs authorities for release of the export goods presenting the copies of the purchase orders and Bank Realization Certificates. On 10.04.2019 the goods were examined by the Custom Officers and representative samples were drawn. On 12.04.2019 appellants again requested for the release of goods on the ground that the consignee was awaiting the goods for nearly five and half months and was reluctant to pay the balance amount.
2.4 Investigations conducted by the Customs in the matter involved testing of the representative samples of the export products to ascertain the actual composition of the goods for determination of appropriate classification of the goods and determining respective drawback rate, market survey of the export products to identify the value of the goods in terms of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007. In order to avoid any further delay, on 27.05.2019 the appellants had again submitted a letter to the Commissioner (General) for release of the export goods without any personal hearing. By a letter in F. No.SG/MISC-238/2018- 19/CIU/JNCH dated 13.06.2019, the appellants were communicated about the decision of the competent authority for the provisional release of the export goods subject to their furnishing of a bond for an amount of Rs.6,40,08,137/- being the declared value of the export goods and a bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.75,00,000/-.
2.5 Since the appellants found the conditions of provisional release too harsh, they vide their letter dated 06.2019 and 27.08.2019 requested the concerned authorities to allow the goods to be exported without insisting on the conditions of Bank Guarantee or to reduce the amount of bank guarantee. Since department failed to consider the request of the appellants favourably, the appellants had approached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, by filing writ petition No. 11061 of 2019 for relief. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay had disposed of the writ petition vide its order dated 13.02.2020 stating asunder:
“4. Keeping all the contentions of both the parties open, we dispose of the petition as above with liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal.
5. At this stage, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondents states that in case the appeal is filed within a period of two weeks, the Respondents will not raise an objection regarding limitation. The Tribunal will take note of this stand of the Respondents.”
2.6 As per the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, appellants had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal within two weeks’ Taking the note of Hon’ble High Court’s Order, the said appeal was admitted and held maintainable by the Tribunal vide its Order No. I/07/2020 dated 27.10.2020. Subsequently, after hearing both the parties, this Tribunal had passed the Final Order No. A/85190/2021 dated 29.01.2021 in the first round of litigation. The extract of the relevant paragraphs of the above order is given below:
“4.5 The goods were examined by the departmental officers and the samples drawn on 10.04.2019, as stated by the appellants in their communication dated 12.04.2019, and not disputed by the revenue.
In para 2 of their letter dated04.01.2021, revenue states as follows:
“2. In this regard, it is to inform that on the basis of certain intelligence goods being exported vide 11 shipping bill No. 8371039 & 8371034 both dated 20.10.2018, 8395903, 8395902, 8397436, 8397455, 8397405, 8397409, 839442, 8397410 and 8397426 all dated 22.10.2018 filed by M/s S G International, were kept on hold at JWR CPS vide Hold No 47/2018-19 dated 25.10.2018 by the Central Intelligence Unit, JNCH.
Subsequently, goods pertaining to above shipping bills were examined under Panchnama dated 10.04.2018 in presence of Shri Mohd. Sadique Muchhada, Power of Attorney holder of M/s S G International concern. At the time of time of examination representative samples were drawn and sealed for the purpose of testing and further investigation. On examination, …”
4.7 From the above it is quite evident that goods could have been provisionally released to the appellants immediately after 10.04.2019, for which the appellant had made request on 12.04.2019. Vide Circular No 01/2011-Customs dated 4th January 2011, following clarification has been given by the Board …..
xx xx xx xx xx
4.10 In our view the failure on the part of revenue to complete the proceedings early within the prescribed time frame has not only affected the interests of the exporters, but has also impacted the revenue
4.11 In view of the discussions as above and to protect the interests of the exporters as well as revenue, we are of the view that revenue should finalize the proceedings against the appellants and adjudicate the matter at the earliest preferably within a period of one month from the date of this Principal Chief Commissioner JNCH, Nhava Sheva, should monitor and ensure that these proceedings are finalized and completed within the above time frame.
4.12 In case revenue is not in position to complete the entire proceedings within one month time, then they should allow the provisional release of the detained export goods immediately within a week from the date of receipt of this order, on execution of the bond equivalent to the value of the goods and security in form of Bank Guarantee of Rs 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only). While determining the amount of security, we have taken the note of decisions of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court referred to by the counsel for appellant.
4.13 In respect of detention and demurrage charges in their letter dated 10.2021, revenue has stated as under:
“3. In regards to detention waiver, it is to that this office will follow Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 which states that-
The Customs Cargo Service provider shall –
Subject to any other law for the time being in force, shall not charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive officer or examining officer as the case may be:”
Taking the note of the above submission made by the revenue before us and admitting that these goods have been detained by them, we are of the opinion that these charges should be waived and proper certificate in this regards be issued by the concerned authorities.
5.1 In view of the discussions as above, the appeal is disposed of as per our observations in para 11, 4.12 & 4.13, supra.”
2.7 In pursuance to the above order of the Tribunal dated 01.2021, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva being the original authority had passed an Order-in-Original No. 593/2020-21/ADC/NS- II/JNCH/CAC dated 27.02.2021, wherein the assessable value was redetermined as Rs.2,34,42,440/- under Rule 6 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007; impugned export goods were confiscated under Section 113 (i), 113 (i)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.20,00,000/-; imposition of penalty of Rs.40,00,000/- on the exporter under Section 114(iii) ibid, and Rs.15,00,000/- on Shri Mohd. Siddique Muchhada, Power of Attorney holder under Section 114AA ibid; besides the eligible drawback was reduced to Rs.5,25,786/- and other eligible refunds were restricted to lower amount than the one claimed by appellants such as IGST reduced to Rs.14,42,877/- from Rs.42,32,438/-, ROSL was reduced to Rs. 2,67,997/- from Rs.6,91,458/-, and MEIS benefits reduced to Rs.4,78,995/- from Rs.13,17,750/. The appellants had preferred an appeal against the order of the original authority before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who had rejected the appeal by upholding the order of the original authority in the impugned order dated 20.09.2021. Being aggrieved against the impugned order, the appellants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal.
3.1 Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the transaction value declared on the shipping bills is genuine and are at arm’s length prices, as the goods are procured from unrelated sellers in the normal course of The statements obtained from the local suppliers by Customs authorities corroborated the fact that the export goods were supplied at the invoice prices indicated therein and that the entire sale consideration was received through banking channel. Further, he stated that value declared in the invoices and the declaration made in shipping bills were fully received in convertible foreign exchange as proceeds of exports, duly evidenced by eleven Electronic Bank Realisation Certificates (e-BRCs). In view of the above and in the absence of any other evidence, they claimed that the transaction value adopted should be applied in the case, and there is no case of over-valuation or mis-declaration on the part of exporters with an intention to avail ineligible export benefits.
3.2 He further submitted that the market survey report relied upon to redetermine the assessable value is vague and does not contain the specifics of the products such as design, size, fabric construction, fabric weight Hence determination of comparable prices without considering these factors is not a fair comparison and not supported by law. The domestic value of goods cannot be used to redetermine the FOB value of the export goods. In support thereof they relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J. S. Designers Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, ICD Dadri (Noida) 2018 (364) E.L.T. 628 (Tri.-All.).
3.3. It is also reiterated by the learned Advocate that the customs authorities have been time and again made aware of the fact that the appellants have already realized the amounts indicated in the shipping bills in respect of exports from its purchasers abroad through banking channels and the consignee was awaiting for export goods. However, despite production of evidence in the form of e-BRCs for the receipt of payments in convertible foreign exchange as per the FOB value of goods indicated in the invoices and shipping bills, these goods have been detained/seized on the ground of over valuation of goods on the basis of market survey. Hence, he claimed that such an action of Customs is contrary to the law and instructions of the department and thus he stated that the impugned order is not sustainable. In support of their stand, they relied upon the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. TEX AGE 2016 (340) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and Siddachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III 2011 (267) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)
4. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the findings made by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) in the impugned order and submitted that the export goods on inspection by Customs were found to be of too small in sizes, which are rightly classifiable as ‘baby garments’ and not as declared by the exporter as ‘boys or girls dress’; further the test results of the samples drawn during the course of examination provide factual position of the composition of the fabric used for readymade garments; these factors necessitated change in classification under Customs tariff and the identification of respective tariff item under Drawback schedule for determination of applicable rate of As regards the valuation of export goods, the market survey conducted by Customs as per report dated 17.05.2019 has been accepted by Shri Mohd. Sidique Muchhada, Power of Attorney holder of the exporter. Accordingly, the original authority had redetermined the value of export goods under Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007. It is also stated by him that on account of the mis-declaration of the description of export goods and its value, these are liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) and 113(i)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the appellants are liable for penal action under Section 114(iii) and 114AA ibid. Therefore, he stated that the impugned order is sustainable. In support of their stand, he relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court the case of Om Prakash Bhatia Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi 2003 (155) E.L.T. 423 (S.C.) and the order of the Tribunal in the case of American Eye Light Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai 2013 (290) E.L.T. 720 (Tri.-Mum.).
5. Heard both sides and perused the case We have also considered the additional written submissions given in the form of paper books by learned Advocate for the appellants as well as Authorised Representative for the Revenue.
6. From the factual matrix of the case, it is found that the issue involved in the present case is on the aspect of valuation of export goods, and for determination of the fact whether it amounted to over valuation or not; and the proper determination of consequential benefits available to the exporter upon exportation of such goods; and deciding on the basis of the facts of the case, as to whether the export goods are liable for confiscation and whether the appellants are liable for imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, In this regard, we also find that the original authority, on the basis of Final Order No. A/85190/2021 dated 29.01.2021 passed by this Tribunal in an earlier appeal in the very same case, have adjudicated the case by listing out the issues for determination. The relevant paragraph of the Order-in- Original dated 27.02.2021 is extracted below for ease of reference:
“25. I find that the following issues in the instant case:-
i) Whether the description of goods and value thereof declared by the exporter in the S/Bill are correct or otherwise;
ii) Whether the declared total FOB value of 6,40,08,137/- in respect of goods covered under 11 shipping bills are liable to rejection under Rule-8 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007. Whether the market value of the subject goods is required to be redetermined to Rs.2,34,42,400/- under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007;
iii) Whether Drawback, ROSL, IGST refund which is already been paid to the exporter should be recovered with applicable interest, under Rule 17 of the Customs Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 2017 and Section 75A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962
iv) Whether the goods in question are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, They have rendered themselves liable to penalty in terms of Section 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.”
7. Further, in order to examine the aspect of valuation of export goods, and whether the appellants had failed to declared the correct value or not, the legal requirements as per the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 made thereunder could be perused in The extract of the above legal provisions are as follows:
“Section 14. Valuation of goods. –
(1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force, the value of the imported goods and export goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, or as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf:……”
“Rule 8. Rejection of declared value. –
(1) When the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to any export goods, he may ask the exporter of such goods to furnish further information including documents or other evidence and if, after receiving such further information, or in the absence of a response of such exporter, the proper officer still has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, the transaction value shall be deemed to have not been determined in accordance with sub-rule (1) of rule 3.
2) At the request of an exporter, the proper officer shall intimate the exporter in writing the ground for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to the export goods by such exporter and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before taking a final decision under sub-rule (1).
Explanation . – (1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that-
(i) This rule by itself does not provide a method for determination of value, it provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in cases where there is reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with rules 4 to 6.
(ii) The declared value shall be accepted where the proper officer is satisfied about the truth or accuracy of the declared value after the said inquiry in consultation with the exporter .
(iii)The proper officer shall have the powers to raise doubts on the declared value based on certain reasons which may include-
(a) the significant variation in value at which goods of like kind and quality exported at or about the same time in comparable quantities in a comparable commercial transaction were assessed.
(b) the significantly higher value compared to the market value of goods of like kind and quality at the time of export.
(c) the declaration of goods in parameters such as description, quality, quantity, year of manufacture or production.
Rule2. Definitions. –
(a) “goods of like kind and quality” means export goods which are identical or similar in physical characteristics, quality and reputation as the goods being valued, and perform the same functions or are commercially interchangeable with the goods being valued, produced by the same person or a different person;
Rule 3. Determination of the method of valuation. –
(1) Subject to rule 8, the value of export goods shall be the transaction value.
(2) The transaction value shall be accepted even where the buyer and seller are related, provided that the relationship has not influenced the price.
(3) If the value cannot be determined under the provisions of sub-rule (1) and sub- rule (2), the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through rules 4 to 6.
Rule 4. Determination of export value by comparison. –
(1) The value of the export goods shall be based on the transaction value of goods of like kind and quality exported at or about the same time to other buyers in the same destination country of importation or in its absence another destination country of importation adjusted in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2).
(2) In determining the value of export goods under sub-rule (1), the proper officer shall make such adjustments as appear to him reasonable, taking into consideration the relevant factors, including-
(i) difference in the dates of exportation,
(ii) difference in commercial levels and quantity levels,
(iii) difference in composition, quality and design between the goods to be assessed and the goods with which they are being compared,
(iv) difference in domestic freight and insurance charges depending on the place of
Rule 5. Computed value method. –
If the value cannot be determined under rule 4, it shall be based on a computed value, which shall include the following:-
(a) cost of production, manufacture or processing of export goods;
(b) charges, if any, for the design or brand;
(c) an amount towards profit.
Rule 6. Residual method. –
(1) Subject to the provisions of rule 3, where the value of the export goods cannot be determined under the provisions of rules 4 and 5, the value shall be determined using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules provided that local market price of the export goods may not be the only basis for determining the value of export goods.
Rule 7. Declaration by the exporter. –
The exporter shall furnish a declaration relating to the value of export goods in the manner specified in this behalf.”
8.1 From the records of the case, we find that the appellants have declared the FOB value of export goods as given in their commercial invoices, which is the transaction Further, submitting the declaration form in terms of Rule 7 above, is primarily the responsibility of the exporter. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the values indicated in the Shipping Bills were matching the value particulars declared in the commercial invoices. Further, any exercise in re-determination of value other than the transaction value has to be adopted step-by-step approach on the basis Rule 3 ibid, and after rejection of transaction value as per Rule 8 ibid. In order to establish the allegation of over-valuation of export goods, it is required to go by an evidence or fact indicating that there was a mis- declaration of value at the time of exports in the shipping bills and the value was re-determined as per the above legal provisions. It is not the case of Revenue that the FOB value of export goods declared in the shipping bills was different from the prices indicated in the invoices. The FOB value and the invoice value of the export goods are same and there is no mismatch. There is not even an iota of evidence produced, either in the form of data relating to value of exports of goods of like kind and quality from the data base maintained by the department, to establish prima facie case of over valuation to reject the transaction value. In fact, the Export Commodity Database (ECDB) of the department which has been developed with a view to checking overvaluation and abuse of export incentive schemes is expected to give the weighted averages, standard deviations, outliers on export data which would help in detecting potential cases of export valuation fraud. As per the scheme, the database is made available to Customs Officers for on- line use to check export value declarations and to take considered decisions on export valuation. In terms of the use of ECDB, the Customs officers at the time of sanctioning the drawback claims are expected to verify the export values declared with ECDB data so that they may utilize the legal provisions to decrease the value for the purposes of sanction of drawback claim. There is no discussion in the order of the original authority or in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as to whether in valuation of export goods each of the Rules have sequentially been approached as provided therein and how they adopted the Rule 6 as a last resort and how the other methods of valuation under other Rules were not feasible. Despite the submission of the appellants that they had received the entire FOB value of export proceeds in the form of foreign exchange remittances though the banking channel and submitted the e-BRCs, the original authority in disregard to this factual evidence had simply concluded that the exporter had not produced any documentary evidence in the form of purchase order or contract with overseas buyer; the exporter had admitted in his written submission dated 24.02.2021 that they had received only part payment for six S/Bs so far; and the goods were mis-declared for size and composition. Thus, he concluded that no comparative exports could be relied upon for redetermining the value and hence it cannot be determined under Rule 4 and Rule 5 ibid. However, he relied upon the market survey report of the officers of CIU & SIIB of Customs conducted on 17.05.2009, as it has been conducted in the presence of power of attorney holder of exporter and these were market value of the goods of like kind and quality. Further, the impugned order also reiterated the grounds relied upon by the original authority for adjudging the confirmed demands and for upholding the re- determination of export value, as the investigation officers have followed the provision of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 and have proceeded sequentially and resorted to Rule 6, i.e., market survey; and as per the market survey report, which was conducted along with the representative of the exporter. Thus, the impugned order had re-determined the FOB value of the export goods covered under 11 S/Bs as Rs.2,34,42,440/-as against declared value of Rs.6,40,08,137/-. In the impugned order it is also stated that once mis-declaration is established, the onus shifts to the exporter to establish that the price indicated in the invoice relied upon by him is correct.
8.2 We have also perused the details submitted by the appellants in the eleven e-BRCs in the form of ‘Statement of Bank Realisation’ issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) reproducing the information received by DGFT from the banks in secured electronic mode with respect to declared FOB value of export goods against individual shipping bill in respect of exports carried out by the appellants in this The relevant details have been extracted as follows in the form of a table:
