2001 (2) TMI 832

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... supply of coke from 25 mm to 50 mm screened size and laid down specification for the carbon sulphur and other content of the coke. Clause 13 laid down parameters with regard to the size. It provided overall range of size outside 25-50 mm not to exceed 17.5% as mentioned above. Clause 7(2) provided for determination of size. It provided that the buyer and seller must agree to nominate inspection agent as per mutually agreed discharge . 2. After arrival of the goods in May, 1992 it is stated that they were subjected to examination for determining the size of the particulars by Representative of SGS India Pvt. Ltd., well-known survey agency. It is stated that about half of the survey was conducted inside the port and other outside the po .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as premature on the ground that the assessment was pending clearance. Subsequently after the assessment was finalised by taking the value at the figures declared in the invoice, the claim of the appellant was rejected. That rejection having been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the matter is before us. 4. The Asstt. Collector has given the following reason for the rejection of the claim. The examination done by SGS was done without associating officers of the Customs or without informing them of the examination. Discovery of the oversized and undersized particulars of coke arose as a result outside the customs area in the appellant s factory and after goods were delivered outside the customs charge. These results therefore cannot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the goods had been imported and taken delivery of by the buyer. Such a price is not a price contemplated in Section 14 of the Act. It was not the price paid or payable for the goods. In addition, it is also not possible to dispute the finding of the Asstt. Collector that the department could not act upon material that was obtained without the participation of the officers after the goods have been cleared without the customs duty. On the facts of this case, we agree that this conclusion is correct. It was easy enough matter for the appellant to associate officers of the department in the verification of particulars and no reason is advanced why this was not done. We therefore do not find sufficient material to interfere with in the order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X