9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r kg. He ordered confiscation of the same and allowed the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3.00 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh. 2. This order was passed by the adjudicating authority in terms of the remand order passed by the Tribunal, Special Bench `A , New Delhi vide order No. 392/93-A, dated 20-8-1993. 3. This case pertains to the import of 8165 kgs. of Vanillin from Hong Kong against REP licence by the appellant. The appellant contended originally that the purity of the goods was less than 10 to 15% and hence the price was less. But the test report revealed that the impugned goods were pure Vanillin. 4. The appellant had declared over price and show cause notice was issued as to why the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reof, in cases under the Customs Act, vide Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormal - 1985 ECR 2284 (S.C) and the same is in confirmity with what the ld. SDR has pleaded. . Accordingly the impugned order was passed after granting personal hearing to the appellant. 5. The learned Consultant appearing for the appellant contended before us that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by several decisions of the Tribunal. He pointed out that the goods imported by the appellant are of inferior variety. In respect of quotation dated 15-11-1991 it was pleaded that the same does not contain the details of the quantity offered and that the goods covered by which are of Chinese origin and the supplier is Hong Kong based trader and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onnection the learned adjudicating authority has relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Sharp Business Machines reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 640 wherein the assessable value was determined on the basis of quotations. This plea also therefore cannot be upheld. 7. The contrary view of the Department was that the price range of similar goods is at US $ 13.8 to 15 per kg. and this price quoted in the quotation of US $ 12.8 per kg. therefore broadly tallies with the abovesaid price. 8. But it was contended by the learned Consultant that the importer of the origin of the goods are to be ascertained and the burden is on the Department. 9. But in this regard in the remand order itself the Tribunal has mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been imported as seen from the computer printout, I feel it could be appropriate to give a discount of 10% on the aforementioned price of US $ 12.5/kg, to take into account variation in commercial levels of import, negotiability, etc. Accordingly, the price of the impugned goods can be determined at US $ 11.25/kg (C I).". It is therefore clear that he has clearly applied his mind in determining the value of the goods in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rule and we find no ground to interfere with the same. Therefore the total value of the import exceeds the value of licence by Rs. 21,12,469/-. The licence produced by the appellant therefore did not cover these goods of the abovesaid value and the adjudicating authority has rightly he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
