Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2001 (10) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ared value. (ii) Necessary orders be passed to give relief in Demurrage caused due to the unjust action of the Department. (iii) Grounds of appeal - in sub-para (b) read 1 to 3 instead of 1 and 3. 1.2 After hearing both the learned Advocate and Sh. M.M. Dubey, leared D.R., we allow amendment in the relief in terms of (i) and (iii) above. Relief sought in (ii) above does not fall within the purview of the Appellate Tribunal. 2. The learned Advocate submitted that the Appellants verbally asked a regular farmer to send 50 Kgs. of fresh water unworked pearls ; that the supplier besides sending 50 Kgs. also sent another stock lot of 104.7 Kgs. of fresh water pearls worked and 205 pieces of God Idol in two sizes; that the consignm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of pearls; that under these circumstances, the panel report is void in law and should be rejected; that they had mentioned the contemporary imports of the Appellants themselves and had submitted to the Department a letter dated 9-9-2000 with copies of Bills of Entry and fax copy of the letter of the supplier which had not been considered. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Swami Narayan Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 1999 (108) E.L.T. 470 (T) wherein it was held that as no evidence had been produced by the Department to reject the normal transaction value and merely because the goods are classifiable under a different heading than the one claimed by the importers, did not mean that the value had also been misdec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... panel is biased against them. The learned DR, further, submitted that the value has rightly been determined under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, that the value will differ from pearl to pearl depending upon colour, clarity and carat etc.; that for this reason the value cannot be determined on the basis of Bill of Entry of September, 1999; that it is not possible to correlate the goods already cleared with the impugned goods, more so due to stereotype description of the goods on the invoice as fresh water pearls ; that nothing is mentioned about the shape, size, quality etc. of the pearls which is necessary for the purpose of valuation; that the variation in the price of fresh water pearls is so much that no previous invoice can be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oned. We found that the Original Adjudicating Authority has rightly given the findings that as no written documents had been submitted about the placing of order, sale/purchase of agreement, payment conditions letter of credit the contention of the importer that the supplier had wrongly supplied the goods, did not hold any ground. The learned DR, by referring to the Hand Book of Import-Export, has shown that Replenishment Licence does not cover articles of Pearls and accordingly the confiscation of the pearls not covered by the specific import licence is justified and upheld. Coming to the valuation aspect, we find sufficient substance in the submission of the learned DR that as separate values were not mentioned in the Invoice for three di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the decision in the case of Forest Range Officer, supra, referred to by the learned Advocate, does not apply to the facts of the present matter. In the said case, the law point involved was whether sandalwood oil was forest product within the meaning of Section 2(f) (i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. In this context, the Supreme Court observed that the expert opinion does not aid in interpretation of law. In the present matter, no interpretation of law is involved. The Trade Panel has only opined about the value of the goods. We find no infirmity in adopting the value as per the opinion of the Trade Panel. We, therefore, hold the confiscation of the impugned goods. However, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 1 lakh only. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates