TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and disposed, waiving the requirement of pre-deposit since the need for remand was highlighted. Accordingly, we heard both sides on the questions arising in the appeal. 2. Appellant imported 80 Tonnes of Cloves of Zanzibar origin through a supplier in Singapore. Invoice dated 31-1-1997 indicates the price to be Rs. 18,535/- PMT CIF Bombay (Rs. 18,535/- per kg.), the total price being Rs. 14,82,800.00. Bill of Entry dated 4-4-1997 was submitted along with valid import licences after fulfilling export obligation and clearance was sought. Custom House was of the opinion that the correct value would be Rs. 32.46 per kg. CIF, i.e. Rs. 25,97,040/- in all and the import licences were inadequate to cover such value. Appellant while reiterating th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against the licence. On behalf of the Department, it is contended that evidence of contemporary imports against the transaction value was not relied on account of acceptance by appellant of the proposal to enhance the value and appellant cannot go back on the acceptance or admission and that the correct value as determined by the authority has to be debited against the shortfall. He has also supported the confiscation, quantification of redemption fine and imposition of penalty. 4. In the letter dated 7-4-1997, intimating waiver of show cause notice, appellant stated as follows after referring to Section 14 of the Act and Rules 4 and 9 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1962 :- In the circumstances, since the department has not pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly accepted the loaded price and agreed to pay duty on such loaded value and hence there was no need to go into the basis of the proposed loading. 5. At the stage of waiving notice, appellant stood by the value declared and challenged the proposal to load value as without basis, contrary to law and unjustified. This was reiterated during personal hearing also. Sensing that the contention was not likely to be accepted, appellant, while stating that they were prepared to clear the goods on payment of duty on the value to be loaded as proposed contended alternatively not to adopt the loaded value for the purpose of licence coverage. These two pleas raised during personal hearing must be considered in juxtaposition with each other. If the val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner, instead of debiting the declared CIF value, debited the higher loaded value against the licences, found the value of the licences inadequate to cover the loaded value and acted under Section 111(d) of the Act. Learned Counsel for appellant relied on decisions of the High Court of Bombay, Calcutta and Tribunal to contend that only the declared CIF value can be so debited unless there is evidence of passing of extra consideration and in the absence of such evidence loaded value cannot be debited. He relied on Parmar Co. v. V.R. Gupta, (1959) 61 Bom. L.R. 1482 (Bom. H.C.), S. Narayanan v. COC, Madras - 1962 II MLJ 421, Union of India v. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 284 (Bom. H.C.), Sneha Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. COC - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
