Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Sham Lal And Co. vs Collector Of Customs on 15 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 2003(161)ELT1060(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. These 13 appeals arise out of a common order passed by Collector (Appeals) dismissing the present appellant's appeals filed against 13 separate orders of the Assistant Collector. We have heard both sides.
2. These appeals relate to import of dry fruits such as green and black raisins, apricot, almonds, abjosh and dry figs. At the relevant time duty was ad valorem on apricot and dry figs and was specific in regard to the other commodities. The Assistant Collector did not accept the transaction value in all these cases and adopted the highest value of the season and arrived at the assessable value for the purpose of debiting to the import licence of the appellant. It was thus found that the enhanced value exceeded the value of the licence produced in respect of each Bill of Entry. Therefore the goods were confiscated. However, the Assistant Collector fixed redemption fine in each of the cases and also levied penalty in each of the cases. The Collector (Appeals) gave relief in respect of quantum of redemption fine and penalty in these cases. Not being satisfied with the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals), importer filed the present appeals.
3. We will first deal with the import of green raisins, almonds and abjosh in regard to which duty was specific and not ad valorem. The Assistant Collector did not independently find anything wrong with the transaction values but merely adopted highest value in the season to arrive at the assessable value. That the value so arrived at cannot be debited to the import licences as long as there is no material to show the actual price paid by the importer, is well established by a large number of decisions by Tribunal following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Glaxo Laboratories case - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 284 (Paragraphs 12 and 13).
4. We see no reason why the same decision cannot be followed in regard to commodities where duty was ad valorem. The Department has no case that the transaction value was not the genuine value in any of these cases. Therefore, the question of debiting enhanced value to the licences would not arise.
5. Shri Malik, SDR pointed out that in regard to three of the imports, namely, 3,480 Kgs of apricot, 2,000 Kgs of almonds, 4,240 Kgs of almonds and 7,240 Kgs of almonds, the imports were on different Bills of Entry and the actual weighment showed excess weight and that would certainly violate the condition of licence. In the above cases, we find the actual weight was 3,878 Kgs, 2,050 Kgs, 4,367.20 Kgs and 7,276.20 Kgs respectively and that the difference in weight varied between 26 Kgs to 50 Kgs out of total weight varying from 2,000 Kgs to 7,240 Kgs. The variation weight is negligible and can be condoned. These are not cases where deliberately import of excess quantities had been made.
6. For the reasons indicated above, we find that the orders confiscating the imported goods, fixing redemption fine and levying penalties are unsustainable. The orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.