9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntract was concluded between the appellant and M/s. Wooltex Fibre Recycling, Holland, for the sale and export to India of 180 tons of woollen rags on or about 17.12.1983(Annexure A to the Memorandum of grounds of Appeal). The description of the goods therein was Woollen rags - Old unicolour woollen rags - Unmutilated Fumigated Old : Rags of Woollen Textile Fabrics (including knitted and crocheted fabrics) which are required for manufacture of shoddy yarn and may consist of articles of furnishing or clothing or other clothing so worn out soiled or torn as to be beyond cleaning or repair" - The price at 1.26 Dutch Guilders per Kg. CIF aggregated to 2,26,800 Dutch Guilders. Payment by L/C; (c) a letter of credit, accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gher price; (i) in adjudication, the explanation offered by the appellant was disbelieved and it was held that there has been an attempt to evade duty. Accordingly, the goods were ordered to be confiscated under S. 11 Km) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with S. 3 of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, subject to redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/- within a month. The goods were directed to be valued at Hfl. 1.04 per kg. and a penalty of Rs. l,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant. The instant appeal was the sequel. 2. Subsequent to the adjudication, it would appear that M/s. Wooltex had remitted the difference in price in a sum of Dutch Guilders 41,164.20 through the State Bank of India. The appellant by an application da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by suppliers by mistake is not sound since discrepancy was detected by C.I.U. on the basis of information that goods were misdeclared". This is hardly convincing. May be some information was received. But then, is it not to be put to the test of probabilities? Is receipt of prior information all that is necessary for a finding of misdeclaration, notwithstanding the admission of a mix-up by the seller and a consequential refund of an amount almost equal to the duty alleged to have been evaded, without more? 5. We are convinced, in the circumstances, that the charge of mis-declaration is not proved and the order of confiscation cannot sustain. 6. Not does it appear that there was any evidence brought on record to justify valuation of syn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
