Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
S.R. Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs (Port), ... on 21 September, 2001
JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. Vide the impugned Order, the authorities below have confiscated the miscellaneous goods i.e. ear buds, soaps, powders and albums imported by the appellants on two grounds. First, that the said item required a licence, which the appellant firm could not produce and secondly, on the ground that the value declared by the appellants was on the lower side. Accordingly, the appellants have been given an option to redeem the same on payment of various redemption fines in respect of various goods. Penalty of Rs.12,000.00 (Rupees twelve thousand) has also been imposed on them.
2. Shri V. Prahladka, learned Advocate for the appellants admits that they have defaulted as far as licensing angle is concerned. As regards valuation, he submits that the authorities have relied upon a market enquiry which was never disclosed to the appellants at any point of time. In fact, it is his submission that they were not put on notice as regards the enhancement of the value and it came as a surprise in the impugned Order. As such he submits that in any case, the market enquiry report having not been supplied to the appellants, the matter be remanded. He also submits that there is a very little difference in the value declared by them and the value adopted by the authorities. He submits that subsequently, the Revenue in some other Orders, have accepted the value of the case on the lower side. Shri Prahladka also submits that for contravention of non-production of licence, the quantum of redemption fine imposed by the authorities is much on the higher side and needs re-consideration.
3. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue.
4. The appellants have admitted the importation of goods without a specific licence. As such, the goods are liable to confiscation. As regards the valuation angle, we agree with the learned Advocate that the matter needs to go back to the original adjudicating authority who would look into the evidence with the Revenue for enhancement of the value of the goods in question. The appellants are also at liberty to produce any evidence in their possession to justify the value so declared by them. The original adjudicating authority, depending upon the outcome of the de novo proceedings, would also decide afresh on the quantum of redemption fine to be imposed in respect of the goods for contravention of importation without licence. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced)