TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (11) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20-4-1983 (Portoroz). The total quantity was 3,01,393 yards and the value was declared to be Rs. 10,86,375/-. 29 Bills of Entry were filed. The Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch of Bombay Customs House suspected that these 29 Bills of Entry were fabricated insofar as the description of the goods, invoice values and the date of shipments were concerned. The Bills of Entry were, therefore, seized and taken over for investigation. During the course of investigation the Office premises of the respondents' firms at Bombay were searched and certain documents were recovered. Ten consignments out of 29 were also examined by the customs officials in February, May, October and November of 1984. 2.These investigations, according to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o-fold, namely, (1) that the imported material was not lining material but polyester fabric covered under Item 25 of Appendix 4 of the ITC Policy April-March 1982-83; that the Bills of Lading were antedated and the declaration as to value was false to the extent of Rs. 7,08,744/- resulting in loss of duty of Rs. 9,56,804.40 paise. This was on the basis that the net price should have been 87.5 Cents as against the declared value of 35 Cents. The respondents contested these allegations made in the show cause notices issued in respect of the goods in question. The Collector of Customs held that the evidence did establish that there was manipulation of the date of shipment on the Bills of Lading but concluded that the importers were not persona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort, namely, Item No. (vi) in the Import and Export Policy April 1982-March 1983 in Appendix 17 under the main Item 0.1 `Cotton ready-made garments, hosiery and knitwear' and the relevant item (vi) being lining and inter-lining materials excluding nylon taffeta coated fabrics (25%).' The majority also came to the conclusion that the material collected by the officer from Japan was inadmissible in evidence as the documents were copies of copies not duly authenticated and could not, therefore, be relied upon for concluding that there was a mis-declaration of value as alleged by the Customs authorities in the show cause notices. 5.The single Technical Member, who wrote the minority judgment, however, held the view that it was not essential ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erious doubt as to how far this document is authentic. The majority raises the question as to how the declaration at Kobe and shipment from Osaka are reconcilable noting that there is no explanation coming forth. The majority feels that the authenticity of the documents itself is suspect. In these circumstances, the presumption to be raised under Section 139(ii) of the Customs Act could not be raised because the document did not bear any signature, did not come from proper custody and it is difficult to understand why the Indian Customs did not interact with the Japan Customs and obtain authentic copies of the document from the latter. Merely because the Department offered cross-examination of the steamer agent from whom the export declarat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the description `lining material' or "fabrics, made from man-made fibres/yarns" falling at Item 25 of the List of Non-permissible Items for import under Appendix 4. If the goods are lining or inter-lining materials excluding nylon taffeta coated fabrics (25%) there is no dispute that the said material could be imported under the REP licences held by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant did not question the validity of the licences for the reason that even the Collector of Customs had not held the respondents responsible for the discrepancy in the dates to which we have already referred. One ground on which the Collector of Customs came to the conclusion that the material was not lining material is that in the Import and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant material placed before it what would fall within the expression `lining material'. After referring to the Collector's order in this behalf the majority pointed out the contradictions in para 7 of its decision and came to the conclusion that the basic authorities accepted by both parties went to indicate that the material in question was lining material. This is a question of fact and ordinarily this Court would be disinclined to reopen the question of fact, the Tribunal being the last fact-finding authority. It is not clear that the majority view of the Tribunal in this behalf is not based on basic authorities even if the expert opinion of consumers of such material is ignored. It is rightly pointed out that if the opinion evidence ....