ORDER
S.V. Maruthi, Member (J)
1. The appeal arises out of an order No. S/49-9/82SIIB of the Collector enhancing the value of the goods, and imposing redemption fine and penalty on the consignment of ‘Aniseeds’ imported from Hongkong.
2. The impugned goods are imported by the appellants in two consignments each of 66 bags (1980 kgs) and 66 bags (3000 kgs). According to the appellants the goods namely Aniseeds Chinese are broken quality. They declared the value at Rs. 23,459.72 and Rs. 35,545/- respectively. The Asstt. Collector enhanced the value to Rs. 43,560/- and Rs. 66,000/- and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2,500/- and Rs. 3,500/- and penalty of Rs. 250/-and Rs. 300/- respectively. The Collector of Appeals confirmed the order of the Asstt. Collector against which the present appeal is filed.
3. The proposal to enhance the declared value is based on three grounds:
(i) The invoice Nos. 81098 dated 29th June, 1981 and C81112 dated 18th August, 1981 of M/s. National Native Produces and Animal Byproducts Import & Export Corpn., Kwangchow where the price was shown at US $ 2300 per MT C1F Bombay vide bill of entry No. 913/733 and 1303/143.
(ii) The documents seized from the premises of Shri Diaram Sharma, partner of M/s. P.R.B. Exports during search disclosing the price at Rs. 22/- per kg CIF Bombay in June/July and the statement of Shri Diaram Sharma confirming the above value.
(iii) The Economic Bulletin of Singapore, Indian Chamber of Commerce, Vol. XIX for the month of March 1981 indicated the price at 32US$per l00 kgs.
4. The main contention of Shri Nankani is that the invoice No. 81098 dated 29th June, 1981 and C81112 dated 11th August, 1981 cannot be treated as contemporaneous imports for two reasons namely :-
(i) that the said invoices relate to whole Aniseeds whereas the appellants’ imports are broken.
(ii) Secondly that the L/C for the said imports was established on 15th July, 1981 whereas the goods in dispute were shipped on 1st June, 1981 pursuant to the suppliers proforma invoice dated 9th March, 1981, thus there is a gap of 4 months between two transactions. He also submitted that prices vary from day to day and since there is a gap of 4 months between two transactions, the transaction relied upon by the respondent cannot be treated as contemporaneous to the import under consideration.
5. It is necessary to refer to the finding of the lower authorities to consider the contention of the appellants. The Asstt. Collector who had occasion to examine invoices of the imports and the invoice price of earlier import found that “the invoices quoted by the Department of National Native Produces and Animal By-products Imports & Exports Corpn. and import by P.R.B. Exports which is also broken No. 2 quality as the goods under import”. In other words the finding is that the imports under dispute are of the same quality as the imports relied upon by the respondent. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the imports in question are of ‘broken quality’ and the invoices relied upon by the deptt. relate to ‘whole quality’ is without any basis. It is true that there is a gap of 4 months between the disputed import and the invoices relied on by the deptt., however in the absence of evidence that there is a drastic fall in the prices the differences of 4 months is not that relevant criteria to discard the said prices.
6. We, therefore, see no merit in the appeal and accordingly dismiss the same.