Court sets aside confiscation order under Customs Act, remands for revaluation.

The court set aside the order for the confiscation of goods under Sections 111(m) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and remanded the matter for revaluation. The Collector was directed to re-determine the value without relying on quotations to fictitious addressees and allow the appellants to cross-examine the authors/recipients of the quotations. The findings on mis-declaration were not upheld, and the issue of confiscation under Section 111(d) was left open for re-determination. The High Court directed the release of goods upon payment of differential duty, redemption fine, penalty, and a personal bond.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of LNB down converters and transformers under Rule 8.
2. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(m) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Requirement of a valid import license under the EXIM policy.
4. Mis-declaration of the country of origin.
5. Reliance on quotations for valuation.
6. Applicability of transaction value under Rule 4.
7. Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
8. Personal penalty and redemption fine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of LNB down converters and transformers under Rule 8:
The Collector of Customs determined the value of LNB down converters and transformers under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. The valuation was based on data from M/s. Ringler PTE Ltd., Singapore, and other quotations. The Collector found that the declared values were grossly undervalued compared to the determined values.

2. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(m) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The goods were ordered for confiscation under Sections 111(m) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to gross undervaluation and mis-declaration of the country of origin. The Collector gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Requirement of a valid import license under the EXIM policy:
The imported items were considered consumer electronic goods and consumer telecommunication equipment covered by para 156(1)(2) of the Negative list of imports under the EXIM policy April - March 1992-97, which requires a valid import license. The imported LNB transformers were not covered under para 156(F) of the policy, leading to their liability for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Mis-declaration of the country of origin:
The Collector found a mis-declaration of the country of origin, as the transformers were from Japan and Malaysia, contrary to the declared origin of Singapore. This mis-declaration contributed to the confiscation order.

5. Reliance on quotations for valuation:
The valuation was based on quotations from various sources, including M/s. Chin Seng Radio Co., Singapore, and M/s. Charish Enterprises Company. However, it is settled law that quotations cannot form the basis for valuation in the absence of proof of actual imports at the quoted rates. The Supreme Court and CEGAT have consistently held that quotations are only invitations to offer and not conclusive evidence of value.

6. Applicability of transaction value under Rule 4:
The transaction value under Rule 4 was not applicable as there were no details relating to the import price of identical or similar goods. The Collector ruled out the application of Rules 5, 6, and 7, leading to the valuation under Rule 8 based on available data and corroborative evidence.

7. Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) due to the requirement of a valid import license under the EXIM policy. However, the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, and no specific finding on this issue was provided in the judgment.

8. Personal penalty and redemption fine:
The Collector imposed a personal penalty of Rs. One Lakh on the appellant and ordered the confiscation of goods with an option to redeem on payment of a fine of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The High Court directed the release of goods on payment of Rs. 3 lakhs towards differential duty and Rs. 2.75 lakhs towards redemption fine and penalty, along with a personal bond for the balance.

Conclusion:
The order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication. The Collector was instructed to re-determine the value without relying on quotations addressed to fictitious addressees and to provide the appellants an opportunity to cross-examine the authors/recipients of the quotations. The findings on mis-declaration were not upheld, and the issue of confiscation under Section 111(d) was left open for re-determination.

---