9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the importers at USD 20,984 (C F). By the said order he has also rejected the prayer made by the importers for re-export of the goods. He has however granted option of redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 besides imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein viz. M/s. Simla Trading Corporation, Chennai had filed a Bill of Entry, dated 10-5-2002 for clearance of various goods such as shaving lotions and body sprays, etc., indicating the brand such as Addidos, Charles and FAA. Country of origin was declared as Singapore. On investigation it was found by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the buyer have interest in the business of each other and the price is not to be the sole consideration of sale. Further, the department has also not followed the valuation rules inasmuch as the department has not found out the transaction value. (c) In this case no enquiry was made from the supplier of the goods nor their statement recorded and nothing incriminating was found against the importers. As against that, evidence has been collected behind the back of the appellants which has no evidentiary value. (d) The mere spelling mistake committed by the CHA should not be a ground to hold that there was mis-declaration more particularly when there was no difference in the name of the goods and the quantity imported. 3. Shri A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party to fraud or unless payment of price of the goods stands guaranteed to him by virtue of letter of credit or otherwise. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appellants to re-export the goods. 4. Shri C. Mani, learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the impugned order and submitted that the lower authority has passed a very detailed order and the order needs to be sustained as there has been deliberate mis-declaration on the part of the importers-appellants . 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the case records. We observe that this is a case where the importers-appellants have imported various foreign goods such as body spray, shaving set and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been made to the supplier. To deny permission to re-export goods when specifically prayed by the importers in such circumstances is too narrow a view taken by the lower authority, to say the least. We also observe that the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Eicher Tractors Ltd. reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 in regard to valuation and which ruling has been followed by the Tribunal in a number of decisions, has not been considered by the lower authority. We also observe that considerable damage has already been caused to the appellants by way of capital amount, demurrage charges in addition to their credibility. We further find that the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Kausalya Impex v. CCC, Chennai r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
