9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,176/- and the duty to be paid on the goods as Rs. 10,73,051/-. He confiscated the goods under Sections 111(d) and (m) and allowed them to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 23,20,335/-. He further imposed penalties of Rs. 8,71,547/- on Shri Qazi Shabbir Mustafa under Section 114A/112(a) and an equal amount on Shri Arif Haji Gaffar under the same sections of the Customs Act. 2. These appeals are filed by both the above mentioned persons. According to the Commissioner s findings, Shri Arif Haji Gaffer is the defacto importer who actually placed the order and was to gain financially from the import. The other person has only lent his name on receipt of some remuneration from Shri Arif. M/s. S.S.M. Traders is owned by Shri Kazi Shabbir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After applying the deductive method, the assessable value of the subject imported goods is determined. The market inquiries were done in the presence of panchas. The assessable value was determined to be Rs. 9,41,635/- for these 18 items. The Commissioner, on the basis of the value of contemporaneous imports and market inquiries, came to the conclusion that the assessable value of the total consignment is Rs. 18,64,176/- and the duty payable is Rs. 10,73,051/-. 4. On some of the goods under import, country of origin is not indicated. He confiscated such goods under Section 111(d) read with Section 117 of the Trade Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 5. The Commissioner rejected the transaction value on the ground that the country of origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants argued before the Commissioner that the department cannot arrive at the value of the present consignment on the basis of values indicated in the contemporaneous Bills of Entry as even in those bills the value was loaded by the Customs. The Commissioner met with this argument, stating that even in those cases the goods were mis-declared and the importers paid the duty on the loaded values, in addition to fine and penalty. The appellants before him alleged that the market inquiries were not done properly inasmuch as the inquiries were made without showing the samples of the imported goods to the shopkeepers. One of the panchas has clearly stated that the inquiries in the market were made without showing the samples of the imported good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods in question were imported. He also cited the decision in the case of Spices Trading Corpn. v. C.C. - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 665 to say that the department is prohibited from adopting the value of stray instances of import to reject the transaction value, ignoring other attending circumstances. He also argued that enhancement of the value based on investigation in respect of some other imports is not sustainable. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate and submissions made by the learned DR. 12. On the issue whether the department can compare the value declared by the appellants in respect of some of the goods (8 items) with the value arrived at by the department in some other contemporaneous impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the descriptions of the items. (d) No actual purchases were made at the time of market inquiries. So the prices shown in the panchnama are not the prices at which the goods are bought and sold. 14. We observe that the Commissioner has not met with these contentions in the impugned order properly. He says that it is not necessary that the names of the shops when the market inquiries are conducted in the presence of witnesses. This is not acceptable. The purpose of conducting market inquiries is to determine the prices at which the goods are sold in wholesale. If the name of the shop itself is not given where such goods are supposed to be sold, it is difficult to accept that inquiry has been made in accordance with the rules. He rej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted. The declared value of the goods where contemporaneous imports were not noticed is Rs. 1,38,238/-. This value is accepted. 15. The next question is whether some of the goods on which no country of origin is given are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) read with the provisions of Trade Merchandise Marks Act. We uphold the Commissioner s contention that they are liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) as there is a mis-declaration in respect of material particulars of goods under import. 16. The Commissioner imposed penalties on both de facto importer and the de jure importer Section 114A of the Customs Act. We observe that Section 114A can be invoked against the person from whom the duty is demanded. The Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
