9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct Group 0-1 valid for import of lining and interlining material excluding nylon, taffeta and coated fabrics. The goods were examined by the Customs and further investigations were taken up as there was receipt of intelligence by the Customs of misdeclaration as regards the value and description of the material imported. Investigation revealed that the fabrics imported are sold or offered for sale as suitings in the trade circuit . They are not lining or interlining material as declared in the import documents. Show cause notice was issued and proceedings initiated against the appellants for confiscation of the goods for unauthorised import as well as for enhancement of the value of the goods. The Department was of the view that the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluded that the goods under import are not lining/inter-lining material but are really shirting/suiting material and, therefore, are not covered by the import licence produced by the appellants. On valuation, the Additional Collector held that since the Customs House could not come across any contemporary import of this material, resort could be made to the Valuation Rules under Section l4(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 under the best judgment Rule of Valuation based on the price of another import and fixing of the assessable value is fair considering 25% reduction has been given for the purpose of difference in quality of the imported goods. The additional Collector confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor himself has recognised the clear difference in the quality of the goods imported. They were definitely of inferior quality compared with the quality of the goods of the earlier import. As has been rightly contended by the appellants the basis for adjustment of 25% has not at all been disclosed to the appellants. In such circumstances, we also note that another reason to hold against the appellants is that they have not imported the material as actual users but as traders. The valuation has to be done on a firm basis and when the Additional Collector has admitted that there was no contemporaneous import for comparison, it was obligatory on his part to spell out the basis of which he is adopting the price of the earlier import and give th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
