9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Calcutta has ordered confiscation of mica blocks sought to be exported by the appellant under the shipping bill dated 4-2-1998 by considering the same as mica scrap. Appellants have been given an option to pay redemption fine of Rs. 1.50 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has also been imposed under the provision of Section 114. 3. The dispute relates to the question whether Mica Blocks sought to be exported by the appellants were in fact Mica Scrap , a canalized item - the nominated canalizing agency being M/s. MMTC Ltd. Examination of the goods was conducted on 27-2-1998 which was jointly attended by the technical representative of MMTC, EIB officials, AC (Docks) and Dock Officers. The representative of MMTC gave his opinion on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that quality classification being based on visual tests, depends on individual opinion and such quality classification requires to be done by a large number of individual persons since it is highly influenced not only various circumstances and attending factors but upon mood of the Inspector. The appellants contention is that it was wrong to place absolute reliance on the opinion of representative of M/s. MMTC who is not a recognized expert but on the contrary is a jealous competitor of the appellants. The customs ought to have referred the matter for inspection by recognized expert agency like Export Inspection Agency whose reports are accepted for determination of quality classification for export goods. The subject goods - Mica Block ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted by the appellant, the Commissioner ought to have obtained opinion of an expert such as Export Inspection Agency for Exports whose report/opinion is generally accepted by the customs. No such thing was done. We consider it as a serious infirmity in the impugned order. As regards valuation, we find that the Commissioner has heavily relied upon the MMTC s price for similar goods. The appellant s contention is that the MMTC s price is a monopoly price because MMTC is the canalizing agency for the export of the said goods and moreover they load their commission charges as a result of which their price is certainly on a higher side. We find force in the appellant s argument in this regard. Having regard to the above, we are of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
