9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .90 per yard. The present appeal challenges both the confiscation of the goods and enhancement of assessable value. The confiscation of the goods was on the basis that the part of the dutiable goods had not been included in the bill of entry filed for the clearance of the goods [sub-section (1) of Section 111] and that the goods did not correspond in respect of value [sub-section (m) of Section 111] with the entry made in the bill of entry for the clearance of the goods. 2. The material facts with regard to the goods being in excess of the declaration made in the appellant s bill of entry dated 5-9-91 are that only 51,588.00 yards of printed flock fabric had been declared. The invoice dated July 23, 2001 from M/s. Hilingos Co. Ltd., Taiwan and packing list supplied by the same company and filed in support of the declaration made in the bill of entry also mentioned only quantity of the goods as 51,588.00 yards. The value of the consignment was indicated as US $ 46,429.20 i.e. US $ 0.90/Yards. However, when the container was opened on 10th September for examination of the goods, it was found that the goods could not be tallied with the packing list. Therefore, the Clearing Agent wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of entry, a detailed packing list running into 432 pages and that packing list included all the goods covered under import. It is his contention that if the goods had been examined along with this detailed packing list, it would have been obvious that the entire lot had been entered in the packing list, though an error was committed by the supplier while preparing invoice and one page packing list. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Commissioner was, in any case, acting in excess of his powers when he confiscated the entire consignment, while only the undeclared portion of the goods was offending, if at all. It is the learned Counsel s contention that 51,588.00 yards which had been declared were not offending goods at all. 5. Learned SDR has strongly contested the appellant s contention that there was no deliberate mis-declaration of goods. It was submitted that the 432 pages detailed packing list was not filed along with bill of entry. Nor was it made available at the time when the containers were opened for examination on 10th September. She submitted that this detailed packing list was obtained from the supplier only after it had been pointed out by the customs on 10t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nis party. This agreement of 2001 was also to continue for six months and to be reviewed thereafter. The learned Counsel pointed out that the appellant had imported many consignments in terms of this agreement. He pointed out that the sale price of $ 0.90 per yard to 2nds was accepted by Calcutta Customs and one $ per yard was accepted by the Delhi Customs. It is the Counsel s submission that in this case the Commissioner had arbitrarily gone by a consignment cleared at Bombay and had fixed the value of the goods at $ 1.08 per yard. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no occasion to dispute the unit value. He pointed out that, in fact, the unit value of $ 0.90 per yard has been accepted by the Customs, even subsequent to the present import. Learned Counsel for the appellant also took the legal objection to the higher price fixed by the Commissioner. Referring to Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules the learned Counsel emphasized that that Rule specifically provided that when several comparable values are available, the lowest should be adopted for assessment. 8. Learned SDR has vigorously contested the appellant s submission on value. She pointed out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods. There is also no substance in their defence that total number of pieces (2059) in the consignment had been declared in the invoice and packing list and the number of pieces tallied with the goods actually found on examination. The number of pieces was wholly irrelevant in the scheme of the sale. The goods were invoiced and sold according to length (yards) and the total yards indicated were only 51,588 as against length of 95,655 yards. Mis-declaration of length and value remained clearly established by the physical examination of the goods. The so-called explanation letter of their seller, letter dated 20th September, also offers no credible explanation. We reproduce the letter itself below to show how it contains no explanation at all. Dear Sirs, Six different lots of 2nds, Short-length were sold you shipped in 2 x 40 Container and we raised an invoice for 1,034 Rolls (51,588 Yards) covering 3 lots of goods and sent the invoice to your bank for collection. Letter at the time of raising invoice for balance quantity 1,025 Rolls (44,067 Yards) we noticed that goods are stuffed in container not in order to match two separate invoice. In fact we noticed that. One ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
