TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is left to be considered is the relevant Policy and the Collector's subjective satisfaction; that is, his own expertise. The majority after examining the basic authorities and after pointing out how the Collector's expertise based on Shri Sharma's opinion ran contrary to the basic materials, has rejected his conclusion. The approach adopted by the majority could not be said to be erroneous in any manner whatsoever. Besides, as stated earlier, this being a question of fact we see no reason why we should take a different view than the one taken by the majority. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the material in question is lining material. Appeal dismissed. - 2951-53 of 1987 - - - Dated:- 6-11-1996 - A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. and Sujata V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Portoroz) and it was further found that the licences under which the goods were cleared had actually expired and that the incorrect dates shown on the Bills of Lading were with a view to enable import under expired licences. So far as the value of the imported goods are concerned, inquiries were made at Japan and on scrutiny of the documents secured by the officer who personally visited Japan it was found that the true value in U.S. Dollars of the consignment shipped were : Raya glory : $ 80.65 CIF, Raya Fortune : $89.78 CIF, and Portoroz : $ 100.25 CIF. The FOB values in Japanese yen were also given in these documents. On receipt of the above valuation the average value of the different types of consignments shipped was worked out as : Ray ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he price as found in the export declaration was acceptable as assessable value under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 which was far higher than the value declared by the respondents in the Bills of Entry. On these findings he held the charges established and ordered absolute confiscation of the goods and in addition imposed a penalty on the respondents M/s. East Punjab Traders of Rs. 10 lakhs, M/s. Janata Traders of Rs. 6 lakhs and M/s. P.C. Jain Company of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. 4.Against the aforesaid order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, dated 27-5-1985 three appeals were preferred by the afore-mentioned respondents and these were heard together by a three member Bench of CEGAT and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act, 1962 which permits the raising of a presumption in respect of documents received from any place outside Indian in the course of investigation of any offence alleged to have been committed by any person under the Act. The majority points out that these documents, which are photocopies, do not bear the signature either of the exporter, the forwarding agent, the stevedore or the Customs Officer. In fact, they do not bear any signature whatsoever and, therefore, the authenticity of these documents is suspect and it is not possible to presume that the originals are duly signed. It is for this reason that the majority did not consider it safe to place reliance on photocopies of copies of the documents recovered by the Customs Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bear a serial number and stamp of Japan Customs, the fact remains that they are copies of copies and indisputably bear no signature of the exporter, the forwarding agent, the stevedore or the Customs Officer; no signature at all of any of them. The discrepancy in regard to copies bearing the seal of customs at Kobe also raises a serious doubt whether the copies relate to any of the consignments in question. In these circumstances, if the majority was disinclined to place reliance on these documents we find it difficult to hold that it was in error in doing so. 6.The difference in the value is again worked out on the strength of these very documents. Once these documents are out of consideration the difference in the value also disappears. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as to width and the second relates to the percentage being reduced from 25% to 10%. We are not concerned with the latter. The Collector of Customs relied on this change and concluded that it was only clarificatory in nature and, therefore, the Entry (vi) in Column 4 of Appendix 17 of the Import and Export Policy April 1982-March 1983 must also be read as limiting the width to 87½ cms. (approximately 35 inches). The consequence of this interpretation would lead to certain penal liabilities in regard to payment of penalty, etc. and, therefore, we find it difficult to hold that this Entry prescribing the limit of the width has to be read retrospectively. The majority was clearly of the opinion that such an interpretation would lead to unfore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
