9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (11) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the following language :— "Examination reveals that the goods have been packed in small cartons on which no country of origin is indicated. Examination of the samples from the consignment further reveals that the subject goods are identical with goods of Japanese origin. The goods of like kind and quality are correctly valued at Rs. 17/- per Gr. Gross c.i.f. The correct value of the consignment on this basis comes to Rs. 18,530/-. It is therefore, observed that by having declared the value of the goods to be Rs. 4,360/- you have deliberately undervalued the goods to the extent of Rs. 14,170/. You are, therefore, directed to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated under section 167(37) Sea Customs Act and action taken against you as persons concerned in the deliberate mis-declaration of the value of the goods." The petitioner firm showed cause, in writing, denying the charge of mis-declaration. Along with the statement showing cause, the petitioner attached certain documents by which the petitioner aspired to establish the Hong Kong origin of the imported goods. 3.Thereafter, on April 19, 1960, there was another notice served upon the petitioner firm to show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fereace to para 3 of the show cause notice of even No. dated 19-3-1960 wherein it has been stated that the correct c.i.f. value of the goods is Rs. 18,535/-. The I.T.C. license No. 0.076635/55 dated 13-6-59 submitted by you for clearance of the consignment covers goods worth Rs. 4,400/- i.e. only which is the balance available against the licence. It, therefore, appears that in addition to the charges mentioned in the aforesaid show cause notice goods worth Rs. 14,130/- c.i.f. have been imported without a valid I.T.C. licence. You are therefore directed to show cause further why the goods valued Rs. 14,130/- c.i.f. should not be confiscated under section 167(8) Sea Customs Act read with Sec. 19 of the Sea Customs Act and Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, and the I.T.C. Order No. 17/55 dated 7-12-55, and why action be not taken against you as persons concerned in the unauthorised importation of the goods u/s. 167(8) Sea Customs Act." 5.The petitioner showed cause denying the charge in the following language :— "In our letters dated 9-4-60 and 17-5-60, we have fully explained the position supported by all relevant documents. Our partner Sri T. R. Kapur al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to certain inconsistencies in the documents produced by them, which they could not explain but suggested a reference to the Trade Representative at Hong Kong to verify the genuineness of the transaction. As to the samples shown, the petitioners conceded that the samples were indistinguishable. Save and except as aforesaid I deny each and every allegation made in the said paragraph. As the issue was the question of value and not of country of origin the latter point was not pursued to any conclusion." Thereafter, the petitioner firm was called for another hearing before the respondent Collector. What happened before the Collector, the petitioner firm says in paragraph 16 of the petition, was as follows: — "The Collector enquired of your petitioner and simply promised to look into your petitioner's case expeditiously. None was present on behalf of the appraising section, no question was asked and there was no occasion for your petitioner to say anything, as your petitioner could not understand the purpose for calling him. No paper was shown, to him and until today your petitioner does not know whether the goods in question were chemically examined or not and if so, what is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating the Hong Kong origin of the goods. As a matter of fact, price is not necessarily linked with such origin." 8.On the above findings he passed the following order:— "I accordingly order that the goods are to be assessed at the price of sh. 13-8 per Gr. gross c.i.f. and absolutely confiscate goods worth Rs. 10,520 (representing the value of 1153 Gr. grosses) under section 167(8) Sea Customs Act read with section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Considering the deliberateness of the offence, I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 only on the importers under section 167(8) Sea Customs Act to be paid into the Customs House Treasury forthwith." 9.Against this order, the petitioner firm moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that the penal order be quashed and that the respondents be ordered to forbear from giving effect to the order. 10.In my opinion, there are two grounds on which this Rule must be made absolute. In the first place, the respondent Collector relied very much on the result of the chemical test report. That test according to the adjudication order was made at the request of the petitioner firm. It is not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
