TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (5) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Rs. 72,950/- CIF. No import licence for importation of these goods was produced. Since in respect of both the baggage declaration forms the appellant had declared the contents as personal clothes, foodstuffs and books, there appeared to be a prima facie case of misdeclaration rendering the goods liable to confiscation 111(d) read with Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. A show cause notice dated 10-11-1978 was issued to him. In his written explanation dated 30-11-1978 the appellant stated that he brought with him only one tape recorder with several accessories absolutely for his personal use and not for resale. He further stated that he was not aware that these items could not be brought as personal baggage or required an import lic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lier proceedings right upto the order-in-revision, despite a dispute having been set up by the appellant. 1.4 In the meanwhile, the appellant was able to obtain an import licence for the said goods. Despite issue of the import licence of the said goods, the Asstt. Collector in view of the order-in-revision did not agree to release the goods against the licence and insisted on re-export of the goods and reimportation of the goods against the import licence. Accordingly, eleven items were re-exported in December, 1981 and again reimported during March 1982 vide bill of entry cash No. 1008 dated 2-5-1982. 1.5 On assessing the same goods on re-importation, the Asstt. Collector without giving any reason and without issuing any speaki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds as fixed by them on the date of the first importation of the goods in November 1978. The date of valuation of the goods was never challenged by the department. The appellant alone, however, had been challenging the arbitrary method of valuing the goods in the face of the evidence of invoices produced by him and genuineness of which had never been challenged at any stage by the said authorities. The learned consultant, therefore, submits that on the authority of Bombay High Court's judgment in the case of Santosh Gupta v. UOI - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 210 the invoices produced by the appellant ought to have been accepted in the absence of any other evidence for the price adopted by the Customs authorities. He has submitted that the departmental ....