9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the reference of any order placed by the appellants herein. The unit price of the goods shown in the invoice was @U.S.$ 700 per M.T. Since no other documents like indent, confirmation, packing list etc. were produced along with the invoice, the appellants herein were asked to produce the said documents. Proforma invoice dated 2-7-1987 of the suppliers also does not indicate any specifications or quality of the plastic sheets. In the absence of the aforesaid documents and particularly the packing list the goods were ordered to be examined hundred per cent. Examination revealed that the goods were packed in 41 pallets in two different containers each comprising 21 and 20 pallets respectively. Most of the pallets, according to the learned S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evasion of Customs duty was alleged at Rs. 13,14,859/-. On adjudication by the original authority, he has upheld the price of the goods at U.S. $ 1800 per M.T. as alleged in the show cause notice. Accordingly, he has also held that some excess goods, as alleged in the show cause notice, have been imported unauthorisedly without licence and, therefore, they are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, misdeclaration of value has also been upheld by the learned adjudicating authority and, therefore, the entire quantity of goods has been held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) ibid. The adjudicating authority has, however, given an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-. As regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly show the value of the goods from U.S. $ 800 per M.T. to U.S. $ 9290.59 per M.T. Best judgment assessment, therefore, in terms of the Valuation Rules, according to the appellants learned advocate is not at all justified. He, further submits that even if it is held that there is undervaluation of the goods no cogent reasons whatsoever to arrive at the value of U.S. $ 1800 per M.T. have been given. The basis on which this price has been fixed has not at all been spelt out either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order, according to the learned Advocate. He further submits that to establish undervaluation of any imported goods extra commercial relationship between the supplier and the importer had to be established. There is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (13) ECR 685 (Para 29). (mentioned supra) (4) 1985 (19) E.L.T. 257 (para 16) - Virchem Corpn. v. CCE, Bombay. (5) 1988 (35) E.L.T. 386 - Computer Karishma Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bombay. Relying on the last two citations, learned advocate has submitted that it has been held in those cases by the Tribunal that confiscation and imposition of redemption fine not justified in the absence of an evidence that the appellants had remitted clandestinely any amount towards the cost of the goods. A similar position, according to the learned advocate, exists in the instant case. 3. Learned SDR, Shri A.S.R.Nair, appearing for the department, has pointed out, as already mentioned, that the appellants did not file any indent, confirmation, packing list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. As regards the learned advocate s plea for non-confiscation of goods in the absence of any evidence against deliberate suppression or misdeclaration of value of goods by the appellants, the learned SDR submits that liability to confiscation of goods is an absolute one under the Act and it does not depend upon the mens rea of the importers. This is apparent from the difference in wording of Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We find from the impugned order that the lower authority has relied on Annexures D , E , M , O , P , Q , R , S , T and U to the show cause notice. The various annexures excepting annexure U referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and the appellants should agree to examination of goods by a panel of three experts or an expert institution who are or which is competent to give opinion on this matter. In the light of such an expert opinion, value of the goods should be arrived at and should be adopted for the purpose of assessment. Since the goods are still under detention, we direct that the valuation of the goods should be finalised by the department in accordance with the above directions within two months of the date of receipt of this order. As regards the question of liability to confiscation of goods, while we do not agree with the learned advocate for the appellants, that since there is no wilful default on the part of the appellants, or there is no evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
