TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the imported goods and attracted these provisions for adjudication of confiscation and penalty. There is no infirmity in the Tribunal's order. Appeal dismissed. - 2144-46 of 1991 - - - Dated:- 16-9-1992 - J.S. Verma and A.S. Anand, JJ. [Judgment per : J.S. Verma, J.]. - These appeals under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 are against the order dated August 21, 1990 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. C/987-989/89-A arising out of the order dated December 13, 1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dismissing the appeals against the order dated March 7, 1988 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs. 2.The appellants imported gum rosin declarin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.The appellants expressly informed the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in writing by letters dated 2-2-1987 and 28-12-1987 that they did not dispute the test reports and that they also waived the notice to show cause against confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty required to be given under Section 124 of the Act, stating clearly that the appellants were ready to get the matter adjudicated for this purpose by the customs authorities; and that they needed the goods urgently which may be released to them on their personal bond or guarantee. This request of the appellants was accepted, the goods released to them on that basis and adjudication proceeded with. The Deputy Collector of Customs by order dated March 7, 1988 held tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment under Section 14 of the Act; and (2) liability of the appellants for misdeclaration of the goods. 5.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have no doubt that these appeals must be dismissed. 6.The valuation of goods for purposes of assessment under the Customs Act, 1962 is to be made in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Act, material portion of which provides that :- "....the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation ..... where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale." 7.The learned counsel for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act, 1962 provides for confiscation of improperly imported goods and specifies the goods liable to confiscation in the several clauses therein, of which clause (m) is as under :- "(m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof;" 9.Section 2 contains the definitions in which Clause (16) defines "entry" to mean :- "an entry made in a bill of entry...." 10.On the conclusion that the goods imported by the appellants were 'WG' grade Gum Rosin and not 'OFF' grade Gum Rosin, it is beyond dispute that the imported goods did not correspond in respect of value as well as desc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laboratory test reports indicating that there was misdeclaration of the goods and agreeing to adjudication on that basis. The declaration that the imported goods were 'OFF' grade Gum Rosin while in fact they were 'WG' grade Gum Rosin was made by the appellants and it was the appellants who had acquired possession and appropriated the goods agreeing to the adjudication being made under the Act on misdeclaration being found. These undisputed facts clearly bring the appellants within the ambit of Section 112 wherein Clause (b) is wide enough to penalise even a person acquiring possession or in any manner dealing with the goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Section 111. The undisputed facts are suffici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 112 of the Act, the appellants were liable also to pay fine in lieu of the confiscation of the imported goods at the request of the appellants. There is no dispute raised about the quantum of the fine which does not, therefore, require any consideration. 14.The above discussion makes it clear that the misdeclaration of the goods imported by the appellants rendered it liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and attracted Section 112 for imposition of penalty for improper importation of goods on the appellants on adjudication made under Section 122 giving the appellants option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation, to which they readily agreed accepting the laboratory test reports which proved the misdeclaration of the imported good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
