TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the total quantity was 19.5 Mts. The declared value was not accepted by Customs and hence show cause notice proposing enhancement of the value was issued to the appellants resulting in the impugned order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The total declared value was Rs. 9.32 lakhs, which has been enhanced to Rs. 45.90 lakhs resulting in differential duty demand of Rs. 22,37,003/-. The adjudicating Commissioner has ordered confiscation with option to redeem the same on redemption fine of Rs. 15 lakhs and he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. 2. Shri J.C. Patel, learned Advocate for the appellants challenges the enhancement of value on the ground that the goods imported by the appellants were not of prime quality an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in respect of five consignments related to goods which were not of uniform size and not of prime quality and hence could not be adopted for the prime quality product imported by the appellants. 4. In response to a query from the Bench, the learned DR obtained and submitted to the Bench details of FR-4 grade mentioned in the bill of entry in respect of the impugned goods. The Glossary of Printed Circuit Design and Manufacturing indicates FR-1 to be a low grade version of FR-2 and FR-4 is described as a standard grade material as follows : - FR-4-A NEMA grade of Flame-Retardant industrial laminate having a substrate of woven-glass fabric and resin binder of epoxy FR-4 is the most common dielectric material used in the construction of P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants had not disclosed either in the bill of entry, nor in the commercial documents there is any reference to, the material being of seconds and sub-standard quality, it is difficult to accept the contention that the same was not of prime quality. 6. As regards the valuation adopted by the adjudicating Commissioner, we find that he has relied on the value of similar material imported by actual users for manufacturing PCBs. The learned advocate for the appellants has questioned adoption of the said value on the ground that the prices of comparable goods were not of comparable quantity. However, we find that no evidence has been led by the appellants at any stage of the proceedings to indicate availability of higher quantity discoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
