TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (10) TMI 122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIF value of US $ 18360.00. The goods were covered by Invoice No. QY-E-130848 dated 29th August 1983 of M/s. Kasei Shoji Co. Ltd. Tokyo, Japan. The clearance of the goods was sought under OGL Appendix 10 Item No. 1 of 1983-84 Import Policy. Since the detailed description of the goods i.e. brand, grade, shade, manufacturer's name, date of manufacture etc. was not declared by the importers nor were the Indent, Acceptance, Correspondence, Sale Note etc. were filed the Special Investigation Branch of the Custom House subjected the goods to detailed examination in the presence of the concerned Custom House Agent. Physical examination of the consignment showed the marking and description of the goods as under : Acrylic Resin SHINKOLITE "P" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed goods did not correspond any material particular in regard to the value and description as declared in the Bill of Entry filed under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the mis-declaration if not detected would have resulted in a loss of revenue to the tune of Rs. 2,11,309.11. The goods therefore appeared to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the importers were liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In their letter dated 6-12-1983 the importers informed the Customs House that they did not want a show cause notice nor did they desire to have any personal hearing as they had already submitted the documents and given their statement. Though show cause notice was waived by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in order to cover up the offence of misdeclaration of value in the import document. On the basis of these findings the Collector held that the value of the imported goods was determinable under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 at US $ 1600 CIF per MT in respect of the contemporaneous import of identical goods by M/s. Lumax Industry and rejected the CIF price of US $ 1080 PMT shown in the invoice. He held that the value of the imported goods was thus less declared to the extent of Rs. 89,746 rendering them liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. He, therefore, ordered that the goods shall be assessed to duty at the ascertained CIF value of US $ 1600 per MT. He also ordered confiscation&nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of identical goods by M/s. Lumax Industry, it was evident that the value of the imported goods at US $ 1080 CIF PMT was grossly mis-declared. He submitted that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the Collector determining the value of the imported goods under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of the contemporaneous invoice price in respect of the goods of same brand and manufactured by the same party. In support of his contention he cited the Tribunal's decision in O.K. Industries v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....US $ 1475 PMT at which a consignment of 17 M. Tons of Shinkolite-PMDP of Japanese origin supplied by M/s. C. Ioth & Co. Ltd. Japan vide their Invoice No. 131673, dated 12-6-1985 against Bill of Entry No. 003184, dated 8-8-1985, was cleared by M/s. Lumax Industries, Delhi. It is seen that the invoice in respect of imports by M/s. Naresh Udyog, M/s. Varsha Industries and M/s. Graphic Arts (at pages 48.51 and 56 of the paper book) respectively in respect of imports of Polymethyl Methacrylate Moulding Compound on which the appellants have placed reliance do not indicate the grade of the imported material. Apart from this fact, it is seen that the consignment imported by M/s. Varsha Industries was shipped from Spain and the goods were of Spanish....