Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Kailash Chand Jain vs Collector Of Customs on 2 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996(86)ELT529(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. The common appellant in these appeals imported two consignments of Gambier, Long Pepper and Javitri Mace from Indonesia in April, 1990 at Cochin port. The dispute in the appeals relates to valuation of Javitri Mace so imported. Appellant declared the value as Rs. 37.40 per kg., which the Collector of Customs loaded to Rs. 50.00 per kg. on the basis of certain imports at Bombay and Madras ports. On the ground of misdeclaration of value, the Collector also confiscated the Javitri Mace consignment permitting the appellant to redeem the same on payment of fine. He also imposed penalty on the appellant in both the cases. Redemption fine fixed was Rs. 40,000.00 in each case. Amount of penalty in each case was Rs. 5000.00. This order is now challenged.
2. Appellant imported 15075 kgs. of Javitri Mace in two consignments. There is no dispute that the consignment was from old crop and contained over 30% of dead leaves, dust and other foreign matter as well as broken and crumbled small pieces. Out of the above percentage, 20 to 25% were of dead leaves. In other words, the goods imported were from old crop and were of not good quality.
3. The Collector relied on certain imports of Javitri Mace at Bombay Port. The impugned order indicates that it could not be established whether the goods imported at Bombay were from old stock or new stock. But nevertheless, the Collector regarded the documents as relevant. The Collector also relied on an import of Javitri Mace at Madras Port in April, 1990. The Collector does not indicate whether any data was available regarding the quality or crop origin of the goods imported at Madras. The goods imported at Bombay and Madras were of value of Rs. 80.00 and Rs. 75.00 per kg. respectively. Since extraneous matter amounted to over 30%, the Collector deducted 1/3 from Rs. 75.00 per kg. and fixed the value at Rs. 50.00 per kg. CIF as against the value of around Rs. 38.00 per kg. declared by the appellant.
4. In order that the goods imported at Bombay and Madras should be regarded as comparable to the subject goods, the Collector should have been satisfied regarding quantity and quality and he should have also taken into consideration the lack of identity of the place of import. The appellant imported over 15000 kgs. of Javitri Mace, while the Bombay imports were of 1665 kgs. 1800 and 1872 kgs. respectively and Madras import was of 5942 kgs. In other words, there is no comparison between the (sic) imported by the appellants and the quantity imported under the Bills of Entry relied on by the appellant. So far as the quality is concerned, it is known that the goods imported by the appellant were from old crop and were of poor quality. There is no data regarding the crop origin and the quality of the goods imported at Bombay and Madras. The Collector appears to have assumed that those goods were also of old crop, though the impugned order does not state so. We believe so since he gave allowance only for the presence of foreign matter but not the difference in the crop origin. He also did not give any margin regarding the difference in quantity. If the differences in quantity and crop origin are to be taken into consideration, according to the appellant, the margin should be around 50% in which case the declared value would be regarded as reasonable. In the circumstances, the argument cannot be rejected as devoid of merit. It follows that the enhancement of value was not justified.
5. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed.