9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an importer of precious stones. The appellant had placed the order on a supplier in London for supply of rough emeralds and they filed the bill of entry showing the value of the goods in accordance with the invoice. Subsequently a corrected invoice was received which was also filed with the Customs. By this time, however the customs had examined the goods and appraised the value at US $ 26112.15 against the invoiced value of US $ 59987.25. The appellants had waived conditions of a show cause notice. However, at the time of hearing Shri J.K. Shekhri, a Director of the supplier had himself confirmed that by mistake the incorrect invoice has been initially sent. Shri Jain further argues that Additional Collector has not specifically indicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e criterion, the second invoice cannot be held to cover the goods. He says that the Additional Collector has dealt with the arguments of the appellant, supported by the claim of Shri Shekri that the incorrect invoice has been sent by error, has been considerably dealt in his order. 4. It is essentially the appellant s contention that it was guided while filing the bill of entry by the value given in the invoice. If the supplier made a mistake in giving the value the appellant should not be penalised for it. This is said to be corroborated by the fact that the supplier has himself reported that he has sent an invoice on 30-4-1991 which was not received here and the fact that lot number did not tally. The goods are seen to have been sent on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the supplier and he therefore had no locus standi to appear. It would be seen that representative of the supplier was present before the Collector to support the claim made by the appellant - he was in fact present as representative of the appellant. It was also the appellant s argument that incorrect invoice has been supplied and it is for this purpose the appellant relied on the statements of Shri Sekhri that wrong invoice has been sent. The Additional Collector in paras 3 and 14 of his order specially considered this plea the incorrect declaration was due to wrong invoice sent by mistake by the supplier. It is therefore, not possible to hold that a plea put forward was not considered. 6. While rejecting the plea of the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace. The advocate s argument is that the Assistant Collector has not specifically indicated what the value was which the appellant ought to have declared. In the second page of his order, he says Thus the ascertained value of these four lots appeared to be 21612.25 US $ as against the price of 59987.25 US $ declared in the importers invoice filed with the bill of entry. It thus appear that the goods imported by the importers have been grossly over-invoiced. It is on this basis that the proceedings commenced and on this, he has come to a finding. 8. The case law cited by the advocate is distinguishable. The ratio in first case is that an order which is based on assumption and presumption and without discussion and without material on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
