9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Mis-declaration of goods, valuation of imported goods, confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Mis-declaration of Goods: The appellants, M/s. O.K. Industries, filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of goods declared as "34 M. Tons of Methyl Acrylate Polymer Shinkolite-P, MDP." Upon examination and testing by the Deputy Chief Chemist, Bombay, and Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd., it was found that the goods were actually "Polymethyl Methacrylate" and not "Methyl Acrylate Polymer" as declared. Additionally, documents recovered from the appellants' premises indicated conflicting descriptions of the goods, further supporting the mis-declaration charge. The Tribunal previously upheld the charge of mis-declaration in its order No. 332/88-A, dated 10-6-1988. 2. Valuation of Imported Goods: The Collector of Customs initially enhanced the value of the goods to US $1475 PMT CIF, based on a contemporaneous import by M/s. Lumax Industries, Delhi. The appellants contested this valuation, providing invoices for other imports at lower prices (US $728, 710, and 710 PMT respectively). The Tribunal remanded the case for re-determination of the value, directing the Collector to consider these contemporaneous imports. However, upon re-adjudication, the Collector reaffirmed the valuation at US $1475 PMT, citing the lack of evidence that the goods in the appellants' invoices were of the same grade as those imported by M/s. Lumax Industries. 3. Confiscation and Penalty: The Additional Collector of Customs confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. one lakh. A penalty of Rs. three lakhs was also imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal, in its earlier order, set aside the fine and penalty but allowed for their re-determination upon re-adjudication. The Collector, in the impugned order dated 19-9-1991, reaffirmed the confiscation, fine, and penalty, maintaining the valuation at US $1475 PMT. 4. Arguments by the Appellants: The appellants argued that the Collector's reliance on the import by M/s. Lumax Industries was erroneous. They presented invoices for other imports at lower prices and contended that their goods were of an inferior grade, suitable for manufacturing bangles and household articles, unlike the higher-grade goods imported by M/s. Lumax Industries. They also argued that the price of US $1475 PMT was unrealistic compared to domestically produced goods by Gujarat State Fertilizer Company. 5. Arguments by the Revenue: The Revenue argued that the invoices presented by the appellants did not pertain to Polymethyl Methacrylate Moulding MDP Grade and thus were not comparable. The Collector's determination of value based on the import by M/s. Lumax Industries was deemed appropriate as it was of the same grade and brand (Shinkolite-P MDP) as the disputed goods. The value of domestically produced goods was irrelevant for determining the assessable value of imported goods. 6. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Collector's findings. It was established that the goods imported by the appellants were of Shinkolite-P MDP Grade, identical to those imported by M/s. Lumax Industries. The invoices presented by the appellants did not indicate the grade of the goods, and some were of different origins (e.g., Spanish). The Tribunal upheld the Collector's valuation based on the contemporaneous import by M/s. Lumax Industries and rejected the appellants' contention that the valuation should be based on the lower-priced invoices they presented. Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the Collector's order of confiscation, fine, and penalty, and the valuation of the imported goods at US $1475 PMT. The charge of mis-declaration was upheld, and the valuation based on the import by M/s. Lumax Industries was deemed appropriate.
|
