9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has not raised any ground against this. In the circumstances, the plea for imposing a fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods cannot be granted. Needless to say that the prayer for imposing penalty on the above company is also not liable to be allowed. - Decided against the revenue. - E/811-816/2002 - A/388-393/2010-WZB/C-II/(CSTB) - Dated:- 10-11-2010 - Shri P.G. Chacko and S.K. Gaule, JJ. Shri V.K. Singh, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Chatterjee, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER These appeals of the department are directed against the Commissioner s order wherein the value of the goods declared by many of the importers was accepted and, even while rejecting the value declared by another importer, the adjudicating authority refrained from imposing redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods and imposing penalty on the importer. There is no representation for the respondents in appeals C/812-814/02 despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. The respondents in appeals C/811, 815 816/02 are represented by counsel. The appellant is represented by the SDR. We proceed to take up all the appeals for final disposal. The responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs are vitiated by this discriminatory attitude. We hold that, in these appeals, the department has challenged the Commissioner s decision vis- -vis the respondents and, therefore, it is open to the respondents to meet the challenge. This is not the forum to challenge the Commissioner s order on the ground of discrimination. 4. The learned counsel has also argued in support of the Commissioner s decision in so far as the respondents in appeals C/811, 815 816/02 are concerned. We have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 5. The learned SDR has filed a compilation of documents including invoices, bills of lading, copies of cargo receipts , copies of certificates of origin, copies of contracts and copies of statements of the master of the vessel. He has also made a mention of certain dates which, according to him, are crucial to a determination of this case. The dates of issue of bills of lading and invoices, which were filed with the relevant bills of entry, have been mentioned by the SDR and the same are noted below against the names of the importers :- Sr. No. Name of the importer Description quantity of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge 95) is dated 11-2-2000, the invoice (at page 69) is dated 16-2-2000 and the Letter of Credit (at page 121) is dated 17-2-2000. The point sought to be made by the SDR is that the date shown as the date of issue of bill of lading (11-2-2000) is unacceptable inasmuch as the contract was concluded, the invoice was issued and the LC reopened much later. In this manner, the learned SDR has made an endeavour to show that the date of issue of the bills of lading produced by the importers can only be considered to be manipulated. According to him, the supplier of the goods had manipulated the date to help the importers declare a lesser price for the goods for evading Customs duty. The learned SDR has, in this manner, invited our attention to many of the documents in the compilation and has argued that the bills of lading produced by the importers are liable to be treated as manipulated. Reiterating the averments in the memo of appeals, the learned SDR submits that no copy of any contract was placed before the DRI by any of the importers. Therefore, according to him, it was not open to the learned Commissioner to accept the contractual price as the basis of valuation of the goods. It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in the show cause notice. In the case of M/s. Standard Industries Ltd., it was observed by the Commissioner that there was considerable controversy regarding manipulation of bill of lading date . From the submissions of the learned SDR, we have found that this very controversy existed in respect of other importers also. If that be the case, the Commissioner s observations about the PLATT price in relation to the goods imported by M/s. Standard Industries Ltd. should hold good in relation to other importers also. Further, we note that, in these appeals, the Revenue has not assailed the contracts. It is not the case of the appellant that no contract of sale was concluded between the importers and the suppliers. Nevertheless, it is contended that the average of five days PLATT prices with reference to date of bill of lading should be the basis for determination of assessable value of the goods. We have not found any valid ground against the acceptance of the contractual price (declared price) under Section 14 of the Customs Act. The declared price cannot be rejected except on any of the grounds particularized under Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. We have not found any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
