9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellants declared a value of DM 8,100 CIF value. The machine has been confiscated by the Customs authorities of exemption notification has not been extended inasmuch as the machine is a general purpose machine and not merely for garment/hosiery industry. For the same reason the benefit of OGL has been disallowed. The charge of misdeclaration of value of the goods has been upheld on the ground that a slip was found along with the goods indicating price of the goods at 9,530 D.M. as against declared CIF value of 8,100 D.M. The machine has been allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been imposed under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence this appeal filed by the appellants befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be extended the benefit of the said exemption notification. 4. On the question of valuation, ld. Advocate has submitted that the declared price of 8,100 D.M. is a result of negotiation with the supplier at the time of purchase of the machine when it was released from the exhibition for which purpose the machine was originally imported into the country. In this connection he draws our attention to the correspondence exchanged between the supplier and the appellants herein which indicate as follows :- We accept to supply U. Band knife cutting machine airfreighted vide Airway Bill 057-5866-3043, dated 13-2-1992 for DM 8,100 In view of Machine is going to be used for demonstration purpose at exhibition instead of our normal rate i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, the price in the course of international trade at the time and place of importation. Therefore, price of 8,100 DM cannot be accepted for the purpose of assessment of duty. For this purpose the price of 9,530 is taken to be the correct price and the duty should be charged on that basis. As regards the penalty there could be a bona fide belief on the part of the appellant that it is the purchase price actually remitted which is relevant for assessment of duty. We further note that the difference is only marginal. Therefore, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty for misdeclaration of price. Consequently we set aside the penalty of Rs. 50, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
