TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 (sic) [Customs Act, 1962]. (ii) I order enhancement of total value of betel-nuts from Rs. 45,31,765/- to Rs. 1,05,96,367/- and I demand the differential duty amount of Rs. 24,25,841/- under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I order confiscation of goods totally valued at Rs. 1,05,96,367/- covered under subject Bills of Entry under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I allow them to be redeemed as payment of fine of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned goods, viz. betelnuts, ordered confiscation of the goods imported and allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine besides imposition of penalty as under : Rs. Value declared by the importers Rs.  Enhancement of value Rs.  Differential Duty R.F. Rs. Penalty Rs. 45,31,765/-  1,05,96,367/- 24,25,841/- 10,00,000/- 2,00,000/- In this case, Commissioner has resorted to Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules, 1988 and rejected the invoice value. While enhancing the value, the department has compared the contemporaneous imports made by M/s. Gandhi Exports, Mumbai some time in 10/1999 wherein only a quantity of 49.90 MTs. of whole grade betel-nuts were imported through Mumbai Po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods should be the same in all respect including physical characteristics, quality, commercial level and the country of origin should be the same. They also contended that the contemporaneous imports cited in the case of M/s. Gandhi Exports, Mumbai was some time in October 99 whereas their imports were in January/February, 2000 and hence it cannot be considered as contemporaneous imports. Further, in the case of M/s. Diamond Traders relied upon by the department, the quantity involved was only 14 tonnes whereas in the present case, the quantity is 255.65 MTs which is much higher and hence it is not comparable. Similarly the quantity imported by M/s. Diamond Trading Company was only 30 MTs and cannot be compared to the quantity imported by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....drew our attention to para 14 of the findings contained in the impugned order in which the Commissioner has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of CC v. Sunsip Ltd. reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 203 (T), M/s. Vipin Enterprises v. CC, Kandla reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 211 (T). In counter, the ld. Counsel submits that the Commissioner in para 14 gave findings that goods are comparable and the reason has not been given by the ld. Commissioner. Therefore, he submits that the order of the Commissioner enhancing the value should be set aside and the transaction value mentioned in the Bills of Entry by them has to be accepted. The ld. Counsel submitted that the transaction value can be discarded only in case the goods are covered within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the import made in the case of M/s. Gandhi Exports, Mumbai cannot be considered as contemporaneous import. Likewise the importation made by M/s. Diamond Traders cannot also be considered as contemporaneous import for the reason that the quantity involved was only 14 Tonnes, whereas the quantities involved in the present cases were much more as indicted in the table on para 2 above. Further we find that in the case of Spices Trading Corporation v. CC, Madras (supra), it was held that stray incidence of import at higher value is not to be adopted totally ignoring other attending circumstances and that higher quantity imported is to get credence. It was also held therein that transaction value has to be adopted unless the department can p....