Stay Order No. 38/97-A & Final Order No. 983/97-A arising from in Stay No. C/390/97-A and in Appeal No. C/163/97-A. Case: Khushiram Beharilal Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Stay Order No. 38/97-A & Final Order No. 983/97-A arising from in Stay No. C/390/97-A and in Appeal No. C/163/97-A |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri K. Srivastava, SDR. |
| Judges | U.L. Bhat, President and Shri K. Sankararaman, Member (T) |
| Issue | Customs Act, 1962 - Section 14 |
| Citation | 1997 (94) ELT 129 (Tribunal) |
| Judgement Date | June 10, 1997 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
U.L. Bhat, President, (New Delhi)
-
The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 28-4-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The application has been filed under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking waiver of requirement of pre-deposit. During the hearing of the application, we were of opinion that the appeal itself should be heard and disposed, waiving the requirement of pre-deposit since the need for remand was highlighted. Accordingly, we heard both sides on the questions arising in the appeal.
-
Appellant imported 80 Tonnes of Cloves of Zanzibar origin through a supplier in Singapore. Invoice dated 31-1-1997 indicates the price to be Rs. 18,535/- PMT CIF Bombay (Rs. 18,535/- per kg.), the total price being Rs. 14,82,800.00. Bill of Entry dated 4-4-1997 was submitted along with valid import licences after fulfilling export obligation and clearance was sought. Custom House was of the opinion that the correct value would be Rs. 32.46 per kg. CIF, i.e. Rs. 25,97,040/- in all and the import licences were inadequate to cover such value. Appellant while reiterating the declared value, waived show cause notice, stated that there was no ground to reject the transaction value and to enhance the value and was granted personal hearing. The contention was reiterated and it was also stated that the estimated value cannot be relevant for the purpose of licence. The Commissioner overruled these contentions and held there was misdeclaration of value, loaded the value as suggested earlier, found the value shown in the import licence, though sufficient to cover the declared value was far below the enhanced value, confiscated the goods under Clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Act, allowed redemption on payment of fine Rs. 45 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Act. Duty was directed to be paid on the enhanced value.
-
Learned Counsel for appellant Contended that rejection of the transaction value and enhancement of value was without any basis and material, that no contemporary import had been relied on and the decision was based entirely on the strength of an alleged admission said to have been made by Col. G.P. Singh, export manager of appellant and there was no such admission on the basis of which the authority could have acted upon. It was also contended that according to decisions of various High Courts and Tribunal where value is enhanced not on the basis of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial