1996 (7) TMI 304 - AT - Customs

Tribunal validates poppy seed import licenses, adjusts valuation & penalties, upholds confiscation.

The Tribunal validated the REP licences for importing poppy seeds, rejecting the Collector's narrow interpretation. The Tribunal adjusted the valuation of ... Imports - Validity - REP licences Issues Involved:1. Validity of imports under REP licences.2. Valuation of imported goods.3. Confiscation and penalties imposed.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Imports under REP Licences:- Imports and Licences: The appellants imported poppy seeds under REP licences dated 23-2-1988 and 24-2-1988. The shipments were made within the validity period of these licences.- Show Cause Notices: The notices argued that poppy seeds were consumer goods of agricultural origin not covered by the relevant import policy (Appendix 2-D Sr. No. 145 of the Import Policy 1988-91) and thus not permissible under the licences.- Collector's Findings: The Collector at Nhava Sheva and Bombay concluded that poppy seeds, being directly consumable, did not qualify for import under the licences which permitted 'seeds of vegetables/flowers excluding oilseeds and dry fruits.'- Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal held that poppy seeds are indeed 'seeds' as per the broader understanding of the term, supported by the decision of the High Court of Madras (A.K. Impex v. Union of India - 1991 (53) E.L.T. 203). The Tribunal rejected the narrower interpretation of the term 'seeds' by the Collector, thus validating the REP licences for the import of poppy seeds.2. Valuation of Imported Goods:- Declared and Assessed Values: The appellants declared the value at Rs. 5.50 per kg. CIF, while the Collector assessed it at Rs. 10/- per kg. CIF Nhava Sheva and Rs. 12/- per kg. CIF Bombay.- Contractual Evidence: The appellants argued that the value should be based on a contract from November 1988, but the Tribunal found the evidence (a telex message) unconvincing and inconsistent with subsequent actions (delayed shipments and new Letters of Credit).- Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal determined that the actual shipment was not under the terms of the alleged original contract. Consequently, the value of Rs. 5.50 per kg. was not accepted. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the value of Rs. 10/- per kg. CIF Nhava Sheva but reduced the value for the Bombay consignment from Rs. 12/- per kg. to Rs. 10/- per kg. CIF, aligning it with the Nhava Sheva valuation.3. Confiscation and Penalties Imposed:- Confiscation Orders: Confiscation was ordered under Clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, with permission to redeem on payment of fines.- Tribunal's Conclusion: Since the licences were valid, confiscation under Clause (d) was set aside. However, confiscation under Clause (m) was upheld due to misdeclaration of value. The Tribunal adjusted the redemption fines, reducing them to Rs. 25,000/- per consignment for the Bombay imports and Rs. 20,000/- for the Nhava Sheva import. The penalties were also modified accordingly.Final Orders:- Appeal C/3428/90-A: Penalty reduced to Rs. 20,000. Other aspects of the order were confirmed.- Appeal C/3439/90-A: Confiscation under Clause (d) set aside, redemption fine reduced to Rs. 25,000 per consignment, and value reduced to Rs. 10/- per kg. CIF. Other aspects of the order were confirmed.- Disposition: The appeals were disposed of as per the modifications mentioned.