Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Agriculture Equipment Co. vs Cc on 19 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(88)ECR284(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER
K. Sreedharan, President
1. The appellant imported certain goods; filed Bill of Entry No. 993937 dated 12.12.1996. Those goods were covered by Invoice No. AEC/Ind/96-31 dated 9.12.1996 issued by Asia Cycle Trading, Singapore. The price of the goods covered by the invoice was shown as 2940 Singapore Dollars. On the basis of that invoice the importer submitted a declaration under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The goods were examined by the Departmental Officials on 31.1.1997. They found that the market value of the goods imported was much more than the value declared. Even before the examination of the goods by the Customs Authorities, the importer, namely the appellant herein, by letter dated 20.1.1997 accepted the proposal of the Department to load the value and imposition of penalties by adjudication of the case, without issue of show cause notice.
2. At page 3 of the impugned order, the declared assessable value and the maximum market value of each of the goods imported is given. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sl. No. Description the goods Declared as- Minimum sessable value Market Value (per Unit) ______________________________________________________________________________________
(i) Piston Rings Rs. 5.00 Rs. 71.00 (set of 5 pcs.) 464 F & B STD RIK Piston PRO FF 19 (made in Japan)
(ii) NRB Needle Bearing 50190 Rs. 1.50 Rs. 15.00 (made in Japan)
(iii) Piston Assembly (inclusive of Pis- Rs. 31.00 Rs. 155.00 ton, Pin & Lock) 350CC Yamaha (made in Japan)
(iv) Chain EK 25H CAM Chain 25H x Rs. 6.50 Rs. 61.00 84L (Made in Japan)
(v) Gudeon Pin (Small size) Rs. 2.00Rs. Rs. 6.50
(vi) Hero Honda Motor Cycle Switch Rs. 3.00Rs. 30.00 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Since there was such a large variation in the value shown and the market value, the assessable value of these items were fixed at far a lesser amount than market value as can be seen from the table in page 4 of the order. _______________________________________________________________________________________ S. No. Description of the Goods Assessable Value Total Assess- Duty (Per Unit) (Based able Value Payable on Market En- Appraised) quiry) ________________________________________________________________________________________
(i) Piston Rings Rs. 27.90 Rs. 1,00,440.00 Rs. 746,252.62 (set of 5 pcs.) 464 F & B STD RIK Piston PRO FF 19 (made in Japan)
(ii) NRB Needle Rs. 5.28 Rs. 1,32,000.00 Rs. 81,141.00 Bearing 50190 (made in Japan)
(iii) Piston Assembly Rs. 60.90 Rs. 39,585.00 Rs. 18,228.90 (inclusive of Piston, Pin and Lock) 350CC Yamaha (made in Japan)
(iv) Chain EK25H Rs. 23.37 Rs. 23,370.00 Rs. 11,638.26 CAM Chain 25H x 84L (made in Japan)
(v) Gudeon Pin (small Rs. 2.49 Rs. 2,490.00 Rs. 1,240.02 size)
(vi) Hero Honda Motor Rs. 9.43 Rs. 5,658.00 Rs. 2,817.68 Cycle Switch __________________________________ TOTAL : Rs. 3,03,543.00 Rs. 1,61,318.68 __________________________________ DUTY PAID : Rs. 43,534.80 __________________________________
3. The above valuation was resorted to by the Department under the following circumstances. The Bill of Entry was assessed on the basis of declaration made by the appellant. Thereupon the special intelligence and investigation branch took up the case for investigation of the correct value of the goods. It was at that stage appellant submitted his letter dated 20.1.1997. The appellant has no case that the assessable value arrived at by the Department of the various items of goods imported is not comparable with similar items of goods at the time of import. No successful attempt is also made to show that the value fixed in the impugned order is not correct value. Consequently, we hold that the total assessable value of the goods imported is correctly fixed as Rs. 3,03,543. The duty on that amount comes to Rs. 1,61,318.68. Appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 43,534.80 towards duty, so that the amount that was sought to be evaded is Rs. 1,17,783.68. This part of the finding calls for no interference. In a case, where the duty that was sought to be evaded comes to Rs. 1,17,783, the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 1 Lakh on the importer cannot be stated to be too excessive. This is more particularly so when it is seen that the appellant showed lesser value and goods were wrongly described. We do not find any ground to interfere with the redemption fine of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed on the appellant.
4. Ld. Counsel representing the appellant questioned the correctness of the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,17,783/- by invoking the provisions contained in Rule 114A of the Customs Act. As per that Section a penalty that can be imposed on the importer is equal to the duty that should be paid by the importer. According to the ld. Counsel representing the appellant, Section 114A cannot be pressed into service. In this case there was no determination of duty in terms of Section 28(ii) of the Act. Consequently it is contended that a penalty of Rs. 1,17,783/- cannot be sustained. We are not persuaded to accept this argument. On the basis of the actual value of the goods imported the duty payable was Rs. 1,61,318.68. But a duty of Rs. 43,534.80 was levied and paid on the declared value. So there was short levy of duty as contemplated by Section 114A of the Act. Under Section 28(ii) proceedings were initiated, but notice was waived by the appellant. So the Collector was within his jurisdiction in invoking the powers under Section 114A. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of this case and the co-operation extended by the appellant to the authorities we feel that a penalty of Rs. 1,17,783 is too harsh. Accordingly, we reduce that penalty to Rs. 50,000/-.
5. Subject to the modification regarding the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Act as confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi in Appeal No. 50/SSIB/DLH dated 24.4.1998. The impugned order is confirmed. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court).