Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Customs, Trichy vs Babooram Harichand on 21 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(142)ELT137(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
Both these Revenue appeals arise from two Order-in-Original Nos. 18/96-Comm. and 19/96-Comm., Dt. 12-9-96 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Trichy.
2. In Order-in-Original No. 18/96, the Commissioner has directed confiscation of imported betel nuts weighing 66 M.Ts. valued at Rs. 11,59,950/- He has imposed a fine of Rs. 3,47,985/- and penalty of Rs. 1,15,995/-.
3. In Order-in-original No. 19/96, the Commissioner has directed confiscation of imported betel nuts weighing 102 M.Ts. valued at Rs. 17,20,944/- and have directed the same to be released on payment of fine of Rs. 5,16,283/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,72,000/-.
4. Revenue contends in both these appeals that the Commissioner has adopted the market price of Rs. 32/- per kg. which is an up country price as reflected in the Economic Times. It is stated that going by the price prevailing in other parts of the country, it is seen that lower value need not have been adopted by the Commissioner. Therefore, they seek for enhancement of the value, fine and penalty.
5. Heard the ld. DR for the Revenue and Shri A.K. Jayaraj, ld. Counsel for the Respondents. We have gone through the appeal memorandum and the grounds. The Commissioner has rightly held on merits that there is violation of Exim Policy inasmuch as the appellants had not taken out a licence for import of the item. He has taken the value as prevailing in the market and as reflected in the "Economic Times". In order to enhance the value for the purpose of fixing higher redemption fine and penalty, the Revenue ought to have produced evidence of higher market value. The same has not been done and instead they are shifting the burden on the Commissioner and stating in the grounds that the Commissioner ought to have adopted the higher value on the basis of the price prevailing in other parts of the country. In the memorandum of Revenue, it has not shown as to what was the price prevailing in other parts of the country and they have not produced any evidence which is contemporaneous in nature of import at higher price. In the absence of any evidence of higher price at which the goods were imported and sold in the market, it is not possible to give any direction to the Commissioner to enhance the value for the purpose of fixing higher fine and penalty. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in both the appeals and hence the same are rejected.