Order No. 676/99-WZB/C-II arising from in Appeal No. C/1764/95-SB(WR). Case: Sujata Verbatim Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Order No. 676/99-WZB/C-II arising from in Appeal No. C/1764/95-SB(WR) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri M.L. Grover, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri A.K. Chatterjee, SDR. |
| Judges | Shri Gowri Shankar, Member (T) and G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J) |
| Issue | Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 111, 125 |
| Citation | 1999 (111) ELT 778 (Tribunal) |
| Judgement Date | March 23, 1999 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Gowri Shankar, Member (T), (West Zonal Bench At Mumbai)
-
The appellant imported a consignment of application software known as "WordStar 6.0" in December 1992 from a supplier from Singapore and declared the price to be US $ 25 per set.
-
The Custom House, on the basis of retail sale price of the product in a popular magazine of 1991 proposed to enhance the value to US $ 163/- per set. The Additional Collector has confirmed the valuation of the product at this price after confiscating the goods under clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act permitted them to redeem only on payment of duty. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence this appeal.
-
We have heard both sides.
-
The Additional Collector''s order is somewhat unusual and not entirely free from ambiguity. Whenever confiscation of goods is ordered, Section 125 of the Act makes it mandatory in the case of goods the import of which is not prohibited goods give an option to redeem them on payment of fine. The Additional Collector has held that no fine is payable and only the appropriate duty has to be paid. The effect of this order therefore, is that the goods in fact have not ordered to be confiscated. In other words, the Additional Collector says in effect that although the goods were liable for confiscation he does not consider it necessary to confiscate them, for the reason that the margin of profit is offset by the demurrage. The question is of some significance in determining to who was the owner of the goods after the order was passed. The appellant had, by letter dated August, 1995, after the order was passed relinquished the title to the goods. However, if the goods had been ordered to be confiscated their title to them did not rest with the appellant, till it redeemed the goods. If they were not confiscated, title continues to rest...
To continue reading
Request your trial