ORDER
M.P. Bohra, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata on 19-5-03.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata initiated an inquiry into such imports. During the course of inquiry, it was found M/s. Aanchal International, 8-Nepal Bhattacharjee Street, Kolkata, have submitted bills of entry for clearance of the goods declared as completely mutilated old synthetic woollen rags. Details of the bills of entry, description of the goods were given. On physical examination of such consignments, it revealed that the imported goods were old and used garments and not premutilated rags as declared. It was further revealed that the total quantity of the imported goods was 85825 kgs. instead of 61956 kgs. as declared. As such, there was a mis-declaration in classification as well quantity. A show cause notice was issued by the Director of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kolkata and the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, confiscated the goods and a fine of Rs. 1,95,000/- was imposed in lieu of confiscation. A personal penalty of Rs. 90,000/- was imposed on M/s. Aanchal International and the provisional assessment was done at the assessable value calculated at the rate of U.S.$ 0.45 per kg. The appellant has preferred the appeal against this Order.
3. We have heard Shri Tamir Hossain, Id. Advocate for the appellants and Shri N.K. Mishra, Id. JDR for the Revenue.
4. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the show cause notice issued by DRI is bad in law because it does not contain in details of all four consignments and only confiscation has been ordered for one bill of entry No. 119157, dated 28th September, 2000. He further submits that the case is covered by the judgment rendered in Gagret Woollen Mills P. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Delhi, reported in 1994 (5) RLT 614 (CEGAT-NRB). He submits that the facts and the ratio of the case of M/s. Gagret Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. is similar of this case and he submits that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the judgment of the Commissioner be set aside.
5. Ld. JDR for the Revenue submits that the facts of the case of M/s. Gagret Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. are totally different and distinguishable. The ratio of the said case is not applicable in the present case. He further submits that in the present case, the importer has admitted in their reply to the show cause notice that there has been a mis-declaration of both description and quantity. He further submits that the appellants agreed to pay the duty on the assessable value calculated at the rate of U.S.$ 0.45 per kg. Therefore, he submits that on the admission of the importer, the value has been calculated and the assessment has been made. Under these circumstances, the appeal may kindly be dismissed.
6. In the present case, the importer submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 20-4-2001 wherein he admitted that there had been a mis-declaration of both description and quantity. He further agreed to pay duty on the excess goods and requested for early adjudication. The importer vide his letter dated 28th March, 2003, requested for waiver of personal hearing and agreed to pay duty on the assessable value calculated at U.S.$ 0.45 per kg. It is clear from the above admission that the importer had admitted regarding mis-declaration of quantity and description in his reply and further agreed to pay duty calculated at the rate of U.S.$ 0.45 per kg. Admissions are the best proof and it does not require any further proof. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner has not committed any error in arriving at a conclusion about the mis-declaration of quantity and description of the goods imported by the appellants and also rightly fixed the value calculated at the rate of U.S.$ 0.45 per kg. In so far the order rendered in Gagret Woollen Mills (supra), the facts of the case are different. In Gagret Woollen Mills, case, the appellant imported the goods i.e. rags were cut into two or three pieces and were not completely premutilated. But in the present case as revealed during the course of inquiry, the imported goods were old and used garments and not rags as declared. Hence, the facts of Gagret Woollen Mills cases are distinguishable and the ratio, of the case is not applicable in the present case.
7. We do not find any force and any merits in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.