1996 (2) TMI 296

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and imposing penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on the appellant. 2. The appellant imported 1,000 kgs. of unbranded Disperse Dyes Blue of Indonesian origin from a supplier in Singapore and declared the value at US $ 3.25 per kg. CAF Madras. When the Bill of entry was filed on 14-9-1992, the Customs House suggested an enhanced value at the rate of US $ 5 per kg. which was paid and goods cleared. It appears on 2-11-1992, officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted the goods at the godown of the transporter and scrutinised and seized the relevant records. Samples were drawn to ascertain the colour, index and value of the goods. The samples were sent to M/s. White House Process (P) Ltd., Madras who op .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this was certified by the Chamber of Commerce. The goods were not branded. They were unbranded goods. The department did not call upon the appellant to produce certificate from Indonesia. This was a case investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Investigating team could certainly have investigated into the origin of the goods. That was not done. In the circumstances, the Collector could not have rejected the contention of the appellant that the goods were of Indonesian origin. 4. The valuation was made by the Collector under Rule 8(2)(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules based on the prevalent prices in the International Trade for similar goods manufactured by M/s. BASF, Germany for export into India. This is seriously .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In that case, it was found that the importer had forged the country of origin certificate declaring the goods to be of North Korean origin. The certificate did not show the details of shipment. It was also found that the claim of the importer that goods were purchased from the supplier in Singapore who had obtained it from North Korea were unacceptable. The Collector therefore, took into consideration the prices of similar goods of Japan, Taiwan and South Korea had adopted the lowest among these as the value of the imported goods. This valuation was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the Collector did not record any finding that the goods were purchased from South Korea, Japan or Taiwan or that the goods were identical in all res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X