9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd November, 1994 and the Bill of Entry dated 23-11-1994 was filed by the appellants. Show Cause Notice was waived by the appellants since the Department was of the view that the value declared is on the lower side. It appears from a letter dated 2-1-1995 of the appellants addressed to the Additional Collector of Customs, Group-I that after their having agreed to the assessment of the goods $1335 (CIF) under protest, there was proposal to issue a show cause notice to them for $1500 per M.T. on the basis of some recent imports by one M/s Shalimar Paints against an invoice dated 5-11-1994. 1.2 Hearing before the Collector took place on 10-5-1995. On adjudication, the Collector has confirmed the assessment at the price of $1500 per M.T. at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found the offer of M/s. Concentra the cheapest, they entered into that contract with that supplier for $1000 per M.T., as aforesaid, for a quantity of 144 M.T. Learned Advocate points out that all these three correspondences with various suppliers indicated that the appellants were getting the offers from various suppliers at more or less similar prices. The prices obtained by them and paid for by them are genuine prices and no underhand dealings can be attributed to these prices. 2.2 In view of the foregoing differences, learned Advocate, Shri Bagaria submits that the importation made by M/s. Shalimar Paints is not a comparable one with the importation under consideration before this Bench. He, therefore, submits that the price at whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 4.00 lakhs on the goods before they were warehoused. An interest of Rs. 7.00 lakhs on the CIF value borrowed from different sources is also required to be paid. He, therefore, prays that a substantial amount of redemption fine and penalty may be reduced having regard to the aforesaid factors. In this connection, he relies on a Judgment reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 409 in the case of Jalani Export Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. 3.1 Opposing the contentions of the learned Advocate, Shri K.K. Biswas, ld. S.D.R. submits that sometime after the importation, the appellants themselves had agreed to a valuation of the goods @ U.S. $1335 per M.T. That being so, the price of $1000 as contended by the appellants is highly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed into the contract for the import of a total quantity of 144 M.T. of Glycerine whereas the goods imported by M/s. Shalimar Paints was for a quantity of 18 M.T. This factor by itself apart from the other factors makes the invoice of M/s. Shalimar Paints as not comparable with the present import. Therefore, the invoice of M/s. Shalimar Paints will not be reliable for determining the value of the present consignment before us. In the absence of any other evidence, the price of the importers at US $1000 per M.T. has to be accepted. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no case for confiscation of the goods calling for imposition of any penalty. Hence we allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants herein. - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
