9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing, the Collector (Customs) passed the impugned order. He held that there was misdeclaration, under-valuation and unauthorised importation in respect of the imported goods. He ordered that the goods be valued at Rs. 3,34,735 and further that a part of the imported goods, which were held to have violated Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, be confiscated. He allowed an option of payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and further ordered re-determination of duty on the basis of the value of the goods which were revised upwards. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants. Hence this appeal. 3. Shri Bharat B. Julka, the Ld. Advocate of the-appellants related the facts of the case and submitted that the goods imported by the appellants were rejected goods comprising dead stock. He explained that these goods were earlier imported from Japan into Singapore where they were lying in the docks for 9 months. Then they had to be reshipped back to Japan and in the process the goods were deteriorated. Shri Julka submitted that at this stage when the goods were lying in Japan, the owners were scouting around for the buyers and these were offered to the appellants s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay [1984 (15) E.L.T. 151]. He further argued that in Appeal No. CD-195/83-A (Chandra Traders v. Collector of Customs) Order No. 925/86A dated 18-12-1986 was passed wherein the value of the same item namely Zip Fastners was dealt with. In that case a large number of Zip Fastners was imported and the Tribunal allowed discount of 50%. Shri Julka submitted that the Collector did not deny the evidence in favour of the appellants and did not disprove the claims made by them. Therefore he did not discharge the onus of proof. 7. The Ld. Counsel emphasised that there was no proof of clandestine payment and not even an allegation was made to that effect. Referring to Paragraph 19 of the order-in-original, Shri Julka submitted that the order took out one line in the statement of the proprietor and quoted it out of context. 8. Shri Julka submitted that the price at which the appellants imported the goods was negotiated genuine price and should be accepted in the absence of any proof to the contrary. Shri Julka making an alternate submission, pleaded that the fine and the penalty imposed and the value revised were all on the harsh side. 9. Shri C.V. Durghayya, Ld. JDR, opposing the argume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sandeep Sarin is concerned, the finding of the Collector is that the goods imported, though denied to be the same as ordered by them, were in fact the same goods ordered by the appellants. The Collector rejected a submission, made according to the appellants, of the appellants not having contracted the goods that arrived and for which they made a declaration. We have perused the Bill of Entry and find that this document describes the goods as - Zip Fastners (as per invoice attached) . The concerned invoice filed by the appellants describes the goods as - YKK Brand Zippers for wearing apparel Polyester Zippers closed ends . It is argued by the Ld. JDR that what was imported were Nylon Zippers. It is also submitted that Nylon Zippers, which are 10% (approximately) costlier than Polyester Zippers. The Ld. JDR in spite of being questioned by us could not show why there would be misdeclaration. There was no document produced before us to show that the imported goods were Nylon Zippers. We specifically asked Shri Durghayya to bring to our attention any examination report, test report or other documents to show that the imported goods were Nylon Zippers. He could not do so. We, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and before us, the 27 cases imported by them had a history of having been exported from Japan to Singapore and having been returned back to Japan. The documents produced by the appellants in the shape of bill of lading No. KS 061, letter dated 27-12-1984 from Bank of India, letter dated 8-4-1985 from Nippon Express to World Shipping Co. Ltd., Tokyo and two other documents convince us that the goods imported by the appellants were same as were concerned in the trade earlier between Japan and Singapore. Therefore, these goods cannot be valued as if they are standard goods of selected varieties. 18. It was the plea of the appellants that the Department totally failed to establish any under-valuation and any unauthorised remittance of foreign exchange. Our careful perusal of the impugned order does not indicate the existence of foolproof evidence on which to arrive at a conclusion that the valuation as done by the Customs is correct. But in such cases it is not always possible for the Department to arrive at conclusions based on evidence with mathematical precision. The Department has to rely on circumstantial evidence and take a practical and conscientious view. It is not as if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
