2004 (10) TMI 504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or redemption, (b) the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry was rejected and the value was enhanced to US $ 900 (CIF) per MT under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and duty demanded accordingly under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, and (c) penalties were imposed on the importers under Section 112(a) of the Act. 2. Each of the appellants had imported what was declared as "Turkish Poppy Seed Second Grade Old Crop" and filed Bills of Entry for clearing the same. While M/s. Unik Traders declared the value of the goods in their three Bills of Entry as US $ 605, 605 and 602 per MT (CIF), M/s. Diamond Traders declared it in their Bills of Entry as US $ 608.94, 605 and 605 per MT (CIF). The total quantities declared....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oms Valuation Rules on the basis of the value of like goods declared in a contemporaneous Bill of Entry No. 871815 dated 7-8-2003 of the Navasheva Customs House. [The said Bill of Entry covered import of 33,396 kgs of "New Crop 1st Grade White Poppy Seeds" from Turkey]. The show cause notices also proposed to confiscate the goods on the basis of alleged misdeclaration etc., under Section 111 of the Customs Act. They also proposed penalties on the assessees under Section 112(a) of the Act. These proposals were contested by the respective parties. In separate orders of adjudication, ld. Commissioner of Customs upheld the above proposals against M/s. Unik Traders and M/s. Diamond Traders. Hence these appeals. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ters' Counsel wanted to cross-examine the senior technical personnel, the request was turned down by the Commissioner. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the test reports cannot be relied on. As we have already observed, the test reports are the only basis of the Commissioner's finding of misdeclaration against the importers. Once the test reports are rejected, the finding has, no basis. We reject the finding. There being no misdeclaration of goods by the importers, there is no reason for confiscation or for penalty. As regards valuation, as rightly pointed out by Counsel, the value declared in the contemporaneous Bill of Entry cannot be adopted for the valuation of "Old Crop 2nd Grade Poppy Seeds" imported by the appellants inas....