Judgements

Goneka Industries vs Commissioner Of Customs on 28 April, 2003

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Goneka Industries vs Commissioner Of Customs on 28 April, 2003
Bench: A Wadhwa, S T S.S.


ORDER

Archana Wadhwa, (Judicial)

1. The prayer in the application is for dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 3,67,439/- confirmed against the appellants as differential duty in respect of two bill of entries by enhancing the assessable value of the goods imported by them. Penalty of Rs. 60,000/- On each of the bill of entry were also be imposed by the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs.

2. Shri G.B. Yadhav, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the assessable value has been enhanced on the basis of report of SASMIRA and other contemporaneous bill of entry. Result of the SASMIRA test report shows that the appellant mis-declared the description of the goods. He submits that the goods were provisionally cleared by the appellants and bank guarantee was given by them. Vide his letter dated 3.12.2002 the Deputy Commissioner of Customs addressed to Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce approached for encashment of the bank guarantee. He also submits that tough the said letter shows the date of expiry of bank guarantee as 3rd December, 2002 the same was subsequently reviewed by them and the bank guarantee is still live. The stay petition be allowed on the condition tat the appellants keep the bank guarantee alive till disposal of the appeal.

3. Shri A.K. Saxena, learned J.D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that the revenue have a strong prima-facie case inasmuch as test report clearly shows that wrong description of goods in bill of entry and there is a sufficient material and contemporaneous evidence to show that value declared by the appellants is on the lower side.

4. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that the appellants has not made out a strong prima-facie case in its favour so as to allow stay petition un-conditionally. As such, we are of the view that the appellants should make pre-deposit of part of duty. Accordingly, we direct them to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs within a period of four weeks from today. On such deposit, we waive deposit of balance amount of duty and entire amount of penalty and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

5. Report compliance on 10th June, 2003 when the appeal itself would be taken up for final disposal after ascertaining compliance.

(Dictated in Court)