1999 (10) TMI 696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 44.44 per kg. CIF as against declared value of over Rs. 36.74 per kg. They also took the weight of the goods as 50 kg. per package as against the declared weight of 47 kg. per package thus, holding that there was an excess import of 808.50 kgs. The Customs authorities confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) for misdeclaration and non-production of import licence and gave an option to redeem them on a redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Penalties of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- were also imposed on the appellants for the import of the two consignments. 2. The appellants took the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (A), New Delhi. They submitted that the actual weight of the consignment was only 47 kgs. p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been done without giving the reasons as to how transaction value was being discarded. The Commissioner also found that the lower authority had not disclosed any documentary evidence to substantiate the basis for his arriving at the higher assessable value. There was only an observation that assessments at Bombay of Cassia was at Rs. 44.44 while it has not been shown that the Cassia under import was of the same brand and quality and that transactions were at the same commercial or quantitative level. The Commissioner held such valuation to be not correct as CEGAT had held in the case of M/s. Honesty Trader v. CC [1991 (55) E.L.T. 102] that for the purpose of Section 14(1)(a) comparison of value should be in respect of goods of same physical ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he issue of the quantity under import or the value of the imported goods. It contends that the Commissioner has accepted the difference in weight in the absence of any evidence regarding the actual moisture at the time of export of the goods or their weighment by the Customs. With regard to valuation the appeal contends that the Commissioner has not satisfactorily established why transaction price being taken for assessment at Bombay for similar goods could not be accepted when the billing price was far below the price quoted. 4. These contentions were reiterated during arguments on behalf of the appellant-Commissioner. As against these contentions of the Revenue, ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that no creditable case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ven about any specific consignments. It had not also been shown as to how the imports at Bombay were considered to be comparable with regard to physical characteristics, quality, reputation, country of origin and timing of import. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner (A) was correct in holding that the original authority had neither shown that the declared value did not represent the transaction value nor established that comparable goods were being imported at a higher price. The ld. Counsel placed emphasis on the decision of the Supreme Court in Basant Industries (supra). He also referred to the decision in the case of Elite Packaging Industries [1992 (60) E.L.T. 311] wherein it was held that for the purpose of comparison, the impo....