TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods under Section 110 on 21-4-98. On approaching DRI office, with all the documents on 1-6-98, they were directed to come on 15-6-98. A show-cause notice was issued on 16-10-98. The Addl. Commissioner heard the case and adjudicated. The goods were confiscated under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act and value determined by the Commissioner was again enhanced from U.S. $ 600 to U.S. $ 710 and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed for redemption of the goods for the misdeclaration and penalty of Rs. 15,000/- also imposed. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The said appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). Being aggrieved by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. On considering the submissions made from both sides, we find that - (a) The relevant Bill of Entry No. 791 was filed on 12-5-98. In this Bill of Entry, an order of assessment under Section 47 has been made after obtaining the order of the Commissioner and the Bill of Entry assessed after loading of the value from U.S.$ 490 to U.S.$ 600. After such assessment, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable in India to cater the demand for its various users in India and therefore, its import is very regular under import licence; (e) The Additional Commissioner found as follow :- 27. It is observed that during the material period of assessment of the Bill of Entry, all Damar Batu consignments of Thailand origin/Indonesian origin were under investigation by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta in respect of value and licensing angle. Pending completion of such investigation, it was suggested by the Directorate of Revenue, Intelligence, Calcutta that provisional adjustment of value should be made upto U.S. $ 600 per MT (C.I.F.) (in case of Thailand origin) and U.S.$ 325 per MT (C.I.F.) (in case of Indonesian origin). Accordingly, to maintain uniformity of practice, the declared value of the subject goods was enhanced up to U.S.$ 600 per MT with the consent of the importer and Bill of Entry assessed duty free under D.E.P.B. Scheme by debiting the duty amount of Rs. 1,74,310/- in D.E.P.B. Licence No. 0051102, dated 7-4-98. The goods could not be physically cleared by the party because of the reasons reported by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Batu with dust only to avoid licensing aspect. As discussed earlier, the imported goods are falling under Crude Drugs, the import of which is allowed with actual user condition or under special import licence. 31. The importer s contention that the show cause notice issued after assessment of Bill of Entry under Section 47 of Customs Act, 1962 is invalid, is rejected in view of the facts that the order of clearance by the proper officer was not given in this case. Moreover, this is a case of deliberate suppression of facts and hence as per decision in the case of Titanide Coating (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, [1993 (67) E.L.T. 260 (Kar.)] and Micro Electronics v. Collector of Customs, [1989 (41) E.L.T. 464 (Tribunal)], the show cause notice is valid as per law. (f) The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), on the following grounds, rejected the appeal : I have gone through the records, facts of the case, grounds of appeal and also considered oral and written submissions made by the appellants during the course of personal hearing on 18-8-2000. On going through the impugned order, it is observed that lower authority has clarified the meaning of Damar Batu in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the imported goods from the ultimate bona fide purchaser for value. If the Collector failed to make a proper enquiry as to the market value of the goods and released the same after a half-hearted adjudication, we fail to see why a subsequent purchaser be saddled with the liability of undervaluation, more so in the background of the fact that the appellant had no role to play either in the import or earlier adjudication proceedings. The Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C., Cochin v. Arvind Export (P) Ltd. Ors. [2000 (130) E.L.T. 54 (T-LB) = 2001 (44) RLT 32 (CEGAT-LB)] have held that an order passed under Section 47 on Note Sheet and communicated to assessee by way of endorsement on Bill of Entry is an appealable adjudication order and not an administrative order. In view of the above two decisions in the facts of this case, when no evidence is forthcoming that the assessments were provisional, the assessment of duty at U.S.$ 600 for the declared goods i.e. Damar Batu with Dust should be constituted having been issued after due enquiry and investigation. As per para 27 of the Additional Commissioner s order extracted herein above, indicates that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re available in the show cause notice and the appellant has not produced any material to show that the extracts as given in the show cause notice are not correct. The plea is not accepted to have caused a grave prejudice to the appellants. Since the Commissioner s order after loading of value to U.S.$ 600, as arrived at by him, on the note sheet and communicated on the Bill of Entry, was not challenged by the appellants and that was an order passed by the Commissioner and communicated and executed on the Bill of Entry. It would be an appealable adjudication order, as held in C.C., Cochin v. Arvind Export (P) Ltd. [2001 (130) E.L.T. 54 (T-LB) = 2001 (44) RLT 32 (CEGAT-LB)]. No appeal/review was filed against the order of loading of value to U.S.$ 600. Thus the valuation at U.S.$ 600 had attained finality. We, therefore, cannot upset the same. (j) Since we are not finding a case permissible to be made, in law under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, by following Mohan Meakin Ltd. [2000 (115) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], therefore, in the instant case, we are not giving a finding on the submissions made on the charges of the Import Export Policy. (k) We find, therefore, no case for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
