ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram
1. This is an application for directions for provisional release of energy saver lamps imported by the applicants herein on the basis of the declared transaction value.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai passed Order-in-Original No. 156/2000 dated 01.05.2000 by which he loaded the value of lamps imported by the applicants from Hong Kong to Rs. 13.28 lakhs (approx.) as against the declared value of Rs. 4.35 lakhs (approx.), confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Brij Mohan Bhatia. This order was challenged before the Tribunal which vide its Final Order No. 839/2000-A dated 10.10.2000, set aside the Commissioner’s order and remanded the case to the same authority for de novo decision to find out the true character and capacity of goods to determine whether the goods were undervalued. A time limit of two months was prescribed by the Tribunal for passing fresh orders. Since no fresh order was passed, an application was filed for implementation of the Tribunal’s Final Order and the miscellaneous application was disposed of by directing that fresh order should be passed by 30th April, 2001. The present impugned order dated 26.04.2001 has been passed loading the value of the goods to Rs. 9,72,762/- by invoking Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation (determination of price of imported goods) Rules, 1988. According to the applicants, the transaction value has to be accepted since the Tribunal has held in its Final Order dated 10.10.2000 that, that value has to be accepted as the correct value. The applicants, therefore, pray that the goods may be directed to be released that the goods on the basis of the declared transaction value. The prayer was opposed of ld. SDR Shri P.K. Jain who rebuts the contention of the importers by stating that there is no such finding regarding acceptance of transaction value in the Tribunal’s Final Order.
3. On hearing both sides and perusing the Final Order of the Tribunal cited supra, we do not see any substance in the applicants’ submissions. The question of correct valuation of the goods has to be decided at the stage of hearing of the appeal and we cannot, therefore, pass any orders for provisional release. We, therefore, reject the miscellaneous application. However, noting that the goods have been lying in detention for over 2 1/2 years, we fix the appeal itself for hearing on 27.07.2001.