1988 (5) TMI 126 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Delhi.
2. Valuation of imported goods.
3. Violation of ITC regulations.
4. Justification for the levy of penalty and redemption fine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Delhi:
The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Delhi, to issue a notice under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, for 868 packages cleared at Bombay. The Tribunal held that jurisdiction is territorial-cum-functional and vested in authorities appointed under Section 4 for the territories notified therein. Since the goods were imported and cleared at Bombay, only the Collector of Customs, Bombay, had jurisdiction. The Tribunal cited the case of Metro Exports v. C.C., Cochin, which held that only the authority before whom the party has given an undertaking to comply with the terms of the Customs has the jurisdiction to question non-compliance. The Tribunal also referenced Ramnarain Vishwanath v. C.C., Calcutta, which held that if goods were cleared by one Collectorate but seized by another, the seizure and adjudication by the latter are without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, regarding the 868 packages cleared at Bombay.

2. Valuation of Imported Goods:
The Collector of Customs had adopted a total assessable value of Rs. 10,77,737/- against the declared value of Rs. 3,57,056/-. The Tribunal, having quashed the proceedings in respect of the Bombay Bill of Entry, focused on the valuation of the sub-assemblies imported at New Delhi. The appellants had declared the value of 140 packages containing sub-assemblies at Rs. 1,08,469/- after adding 20% as notional freight. The revenue's valuation was based on the Bombay Custom House Price lists, which the Tribunal found unsupported by evidence. The Tribunal referenced the case of Takara Electronics, where declared value was accepted. Following this precedent, the Tribunal ordered that the valuation adopted in the case of Takara Electronics be applied, modifying the order passed by the Collector of Customs in respect of the sub-assemblies.

3. Violation of ITC Regulations:
The appellants imported 2000 sets of sub-assemblies under specific release advice and import licenses. The revenue argued that the import licenses were for Cassette Tape Recorders, whereas the appellants imported full Radio-cum-Cassette Recorders stereo sets. The Tribunal found no force in the revenue's arguments and held that there was no violation of ITC regulations.

4. Justification for the Levy of Penalty and Redemption Fine:
The Tribunal found no justification for the personal penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- on Shri Sunil Chawla and the fine in lieu of confiscation at Rs. 2,50,000/- on M/s. Singh Radio and Electronics. Given the findings on jurisdiction and valuation, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and directed the revenue authorities to give consequential effect to the order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the findings of the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, regarding the jurisdiction over the 868 packages cleared at Bombay, modified the valuation of the sub-assemblies imported at New Delhi following the precedent set in Takara Electronics, found no violation of ITC regulations, and deemed the penalties and fines unjustified. The appeal was partly allowed, and the revenue authorities were directed to implement the Tribunal's order.