9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Appraising Officer of Customs. Pending test results, however, the importer was allowed provisional clearance of 80% of the above quantity of the goods and, accordingly, the permitted quantity was cleared on payment of duty on the basis of the declared value. The Textile Committee reported that the imported item was Dupion Silk, Gummed and untwisted, 104 4D . From this report, it appeared that there was a misdeclaration of the goods by the importer. Subsequently, at the instance of the importer, samples of the goods were sent for testing to the Central Silk Board, Bangalore. The Board also reported that the yarn was not Handspun Yarn but it was Dupion Raw Silk . Dupion indicated a higher grade, for which the Customs authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged that they misdeclared any price. In this connection, ld. consultant has relied on the Tribunal s decision in the cases of Shree Ganesh International v. CCE, Jaipur, 2004 (174) E.L.T. 171 (Tri.-Del.) and Vaibhav Textiles v. CCE Kolkata, 2007 (214) E.L.T. 408 (Tri.-Kolkata), in both of which it was held to the effect that any declaration based on import documents was not to be regarded as misdeclaration under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. On this basis, ld. consultant has contested the confiscation of the goods and the penalty. 3. Ld. SDR, opposing the above argument, submitted that, to establish misdeclaration attracting Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, it was enough for the department to show that the description of the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared as USD 17 per kg. Ld. consultant for the appellants has produced a few contemporaneous Bills of Entry covering imports of Dupion Silk . One of these bills, dated 8-11-2005, mentions the value of the goods to be USD 19 per kg another bill dated 7-2-2006 mentions the value of identical goods to be USD 17 per kg, Among these Bills of Entry, the one which covers import proximate to the Bill of Entry filed by the appellants is the one dated 8-11-2005 and ld. consultant has conceded this to be appropriate contemporaneous import. The value mentioned herein is USD 19 per kg. In the circumstances, without further discussion on this aspect, we can safely conclude that the appellants had, at the time of import, declared a lower value than t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er kg. declared in this Bill for a total quantity of 2686.590 kgs. of the goods cannot be adopted as the transaction value in respect of 3357.54 kgs. of the subject goods. We have not found substance in this objection inasmuch as there is no appreciable difference in gross weight between the subject Bill of Entry and the goods covered by the reference Bill of Entry produced by the Consultant and even the Commissioner himself did not take serious note of the quantity differences between the goods covered by five reference Bills of Entry considered by him. Ld. consultant has also referred to a circular dated 4-10-2005 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Port-Import), Chennai, wherein a suggestion was made to adopt the unit price of USD 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
