TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (3) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reign supplier) for one Roland RZK-111 Offset Press with standard equipment. The year of manufacture of the said goods was 1975. The c.i.f. value for the Press along with standard equipment was contracted at Rs. 3,19,200/-. In pursuance of this contract, the appellants opened a letter of credit through Syndicate New Delhi on 25-2-83. At the time of opening of the letter of credit, the goods in question were covered by the O.G.L. under the Import Policy for the year 1982-83. In terms of the letter of credit, date of shipment was stipulated as 15-6-83 and date of negotiation of document as 30-6-83. Later on, vide letter dated 5-5-83, the foreign supplier informed the appellants that due to difficulties, the goods should be ready for shipment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleged to have under-invoiced the goods to the extent of Rs. 1,87,028/-. 3. The Appellants were charged with an offence attracting provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. 4. After hearing the party, the case was adjudicated by Collector of Customs, Bombay. The said Collector, vide his order dated 16-1-84 held that the correct assessable value of the appellant's goods should be Rs. 5,06,869/-and not the one declared by them in the bill of entry. He also held that the goods in question were not covered by the O.G.L. and ordered their confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, read with relevant provisions of the I.T.C. Act. The learned Coll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etter of credit had been opened. Shri Sogani invited our attention to para 7 of the conditions covering import under OGL for 1982-83 policy. He submitted that as a firm letter of credit had been opened before 28-2-83, the machinery in question continued to enjoy the concession of the OGL. The appellants could ship the goods till 31-3-84 and in fact, the same were shipped as early as 26-7-83. He prayed that the findings of the learned Collector on this point were not sustainable in law and deserved to be set aside. 7. The learned SDR, Shri Jain, appearing for the Respondent Collector, submitted that the view taken by the Collector of Customs in his adjudication order was correct and should be upheld. 8. We have heard both sides. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid provisions and hold that the goods were covered by the OGL and direct that the redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- be remitted. 10. With regard to the question of valuation of the goods, the contention of Shri Sogani is that a representative of the foreign supplier had come to India and, as a result of negotiations, a contract was entered into on 15-1-83. The value agreed to by this contract was mentioned in the letter of credit opened on 25-2-83 and was also shown in the subsequent documents and in the bill of entry. Shri Sogani invited our attention to several orders of this Tribunal which have been referred to in the Rakesh Press judgment. He submitted that for valuation of the goods imported by the appellants, the Custom House had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that burden of proving the charge of under-valuation lies squarely on the department which must do so with cogent supporting evidence. Shri Sogani submitted that the department had failed to do so in the present case and the order of the learned Collector deserves to be set aside as it was arbitrary and ad-hoc in character. 11. Shri Jain, the learned S.D.R. stated that the Collector had correctly set out in his order the reasons for rejecting the value declared by the appellants and the basis on which the same should be valued. 12. We have heard both the sides with regard to the valuation aspect. The judgment of this Bench in the case of M/s. Rakesh Press, New Delhi, sets out in detail approach to be followed with regard to valuatio....