TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue. Third parcel bearing No. 10963, dated 18-7-2002 contained 1 kg. of what was declared by the supplier as 2-Nitro Imidazole with the same value (US $ 25/-) declared by the supplier. Test reports obtained on representative samples of the goods from the Assistant Drug Controller of the Central Drug Testing Laboratory, Mumbai confirmed the goods to be 11b- [p-(Dimethylamino) phenyl] -17b - hydroxy - 17 - (1-propynyl) Estra-4-9-dien -3-one , otherwise called Mifepristone . On the basis of the test reports, the investigating agency suspected misdeclaration of the goods contained in parcel No. 10963, which was described as 2 -Nitro Imidazole by the supplier. The DRI also conducted investigation into the valuation of the goods. They could lay hands on contemporary imports of Mifepristone , on the basis of which the value of the goods was proposed to be enhanced to US $ 8,100 per kg. under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules for the purpose of assesment to duty. The DRI also found 100 gms. of Mifepristone having been similarly imported by LCPL earlier in the year, and wanted to book a case of misdeclaration of value, against LCPL. The value of this consignment was proposed be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder No. M/20/2010/CSTB/II dated 15-12-2009 [2010 (20) S.T.R. 768 (Tribunal)] passed by this Bench in Miscellaneous Application No. 1985/2008. All the appellants are represented by counsel. The respondent is represented by the SDR. 5. We have heard both sides, and the summarised submissions of the counsel are : (i). The appellants cannot be held to have misdeclared anything in relation to the goods covered by any of the postal parcels inasmuch as what is deemed to be an entry for import for the purpose of the Customs Act in respect of the goods imported by post is the label or declaration accompanying the goods coming from abroad as per Section 82 of the Act; (ii) The foreign supplier described the goods correctly by its chemical name in respect of parcel Nos. 10568 and 10690 (2 kgs. each) dated 8-7-2002 and 11-7-2002 respectively; (iii) Account of a clerical mistake, they described the third parcel No. 10693, dated 18-7-2002 wrongly as 2 Nitro Imidazole (1 kg.); (iv) The supplier also declared the value of the goods as US $ 25/- considering the goods as free trade samples of no commercial value ; (v) As and when the appellants were called upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it. 6. The learned SDR has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. His submissions can be summarised thus : (i) For the purpose of Customs Act, the declaration of the foreign supplier accompanying the postal articles should be deemed to be the declaration made by the assessee/importer in India and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the Commissioner s finding that LCPL misdeclared the description and value of the goods; (ii) Contemporaneous imports of identical commodity (Mifepristone) at higher value from the same country of origin are available in this case and, therefore, it cannot be said that Rule 5 was erroneously invoked; (iii) As regards, the postal parcel containing 100 gms. of Mifepristone , the appellants have failed to convincingly differentiate the same. 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. In this case, we are confronted by certain peculiar questions relating to imports covered by Section 82 of the Customs Act. This provision of law says that, in the case of goods imported by post, any label or declaration accompanying the goods, which contains the description, quantity and value thereof, shall be deemed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and reported to the Customs Commissioner, and the Postmaster shall not allow such parcels or packets to go forward without the Customs Commissioner s orders . 8. The question agitated before us is whether LCPL can be said to have misdeclared the description and value of the goods. It appears from the records that, before they were called upon to produce invoice showing the real value, quantity, description, etc. of the contents of the parcels, they were queried by the DRI under Section 108 of the Customs Act. We have come across two statements of N.P. Jajodia, Director of LCPL, one dated 24-7-2002 and the other dated 23-8-2002. In the first statement, he stated, inter alia, that he had personally given purchase orders to the Hong Kong-based supplier telephonically and that the said company supplied the goods by way of three postal parcels, weighing 2 kgs., 2 kgs. and 1 kg., which were received in the second week of July, 2002. He stated that the 1-kg. parcel was 2-Nitro Imidazole , a drug intermediary and the other parcels contained 11b- [p-(Dimethylamino) phenyl] -17b - hydroxy - 17 - (1-propynyl) Estra-4-9-dien -3-one . In his second statement, Shri Jajodia stated that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants misdeclared the value. In dealing with this question, it is open to the learned Commissioner to refer to the relevant statutory provisions including those which we have mentioned in this order. On the question whether the description of the goods was misdeclared, we have found that two of the three parcels which were imported in July, 2002 were correctly described by the supplier and claimed as such by the importer and, therefore, there was no misdescription in respect of these parcels. In the case of parcel No. 10963, dated 18-7-2002 there is a misdescription. The goods covered by this parcel was found, on test, to be Mifepristone . It was described as 2-Nitro Imidazole by the foreign supplier. We have already noted that, under Rule 4 of the Rules made under Section 75 of the Sea Customs Act by the Central Board of Revenue, the declaration becomes complete only when the value, quantity, description, etc. reported by the assessee/importer are transcribed by the customs clerk on to the parcel bill. It would appear that, at this stage, the assessee/importer also becomes a party to the declaration. This aspect shall also be taken into account by the adjudicating authority i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
