9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lading No. 1081829C, dated 2-6-1985 and certificate of origin No. CTC BO 39941, dated 12-6-1985. The appellants claimed clearance of the goods under OGL Appendix-6 (1) of the Import Policy AM 85-88. No. OGL declaration, SSi Registration etc. were, however, furnished in support thereof. The goods were examined and representative samples were drawn from the consignment and sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist of the Customs House for chemical analysis. As per the test report of the Chemical Laboratory, the imported goods are Polymethyl Methacrylate and not Methyl Acrylate Polymer as declared by the importers. Representative samples drawn from the consignment were also tested in the Laboratory of M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods was shown at US $ 1475 PMT whereas the price declared by the appellants in the present importation was US $ 600 PMT. Methyl Acrylate Polymer is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No. 39.01/06 read with Customs Notification No. 227/76 and 90/85 and under Item 15A(1) of Central Excise Tariff read with Central Excise Notification No. 71/84 @ 40% + 30% AD + 40% CVD + 5% of CVD. Polymethyl Methacrylate is classifiable under Tariff Heading No. 39.01/06 read with Notification No. 36/83 and under Item 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff read with Central Excise Notification No. 241/82-C.E. @.150% + 40% + 15% CVD + 5% of CVD. 2. In the above circumstances, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging mis-declarat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e D to the appeal memorandum) gave the same description. The shipment period in the sale note dated 2-3-1985 was April/May 1985. The period of shipment had to be extended and another sale note dated 12-4-1985 was made. This sale note is at Exhibit F to the appeal memorandum. The goods are described in more details in the sale note dated 12-4-1985. In the sale note dated 12-4-1985 the goods were described as Methyl N Acrylate Decomposed material clearance sale Shinkolate P-MDP moulding grade . Personal hearing was held on 23-3-1986 and 24-3-1986, after which an addendum to show cause notice was issued on 7-4-1986. A reply was given to this addendum by the appellants. Regarding valuation, Shri Gujral has argued that the Additional Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing before us on 9-3-1988. These contemporary imports are (i) a consignment of 17 MT by M/s. Naresh Udoyog vide bill of entry dated 1-7-1985 at price of US $ 728 PMT, (ii) a consignment of 51 MT by M/s. Dev Plastics vide bill of entry No. 1739/36, dated 22-7-1985 at price of US $ 710 PMT and (iii) a consignment of 20 MT by M/s. Varsha Industries vide bill of entry No. 1678/4, dated 9-7-1985 at price of US $ 710 PMT. Shri Gujral has further stated that in the show cause notice confiscation of the goods was proposed to be under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of Customs Act, but in the impugned order the Additional Collector has confiscated the goods under Section 111 (m) only. This shows that the Additional Collector was convinced that Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of US $ 1475 PMT. In none of the import documents submitted by the appellants It is stated that the goods are decomposed. Therefore, the ground that the goods were decomposed and it was a clearance sale is not valid, and the lower value is not justified. 5. We have considered the case records and arguments advanced on both sides. The bill of entry, invoice, certificate of origin and bill of lading description of the goods is Methyl Acrylate Polymer and not Polymethyl Methacrylate . On chemical test, the goods were found to be Polymethyl Methacrylate. The sale note dated 2-3-1985 described the goods as Methyl Acrylate Polymer . This sale note dated 2-3-1985 was referred to in the invoice, certificate of origin, bill of lading and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs as to why the price of any of the three consignments-relied on by the appellants was not acceptable to him and why he took the price of US $ 1475 PMT in preference to any of those three prices. On this ground, the order of the Additional Collector is required to be set aside and the matter remanded to him for de novo examination, since according to the provisions of Section 14(1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 the value of the imported goods chargeable to ad valorem rate of duty shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade, where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
