ORDER
V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. In this stay application by revenue, it is prayed to stay the operation of the Order-in-Appeal No. C.Cus. 522/99, dated 26-8-99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) mainly on the ground that the learned Commissioner could have remanded the issue of undervaluation of ginger imported.
2. Briefly, the respondents imported ginger and declared transaction value of US $ 550 per MT. The Order-in-Original had held that the value should be increased to US $ 1200 per MT under Rule 8 of the valuation rules. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the respondents had shown a Bill of Entry, wherein, the declared value of US $ 800 per MT had been accepted by another Customs House. Therefore, in the Order-in-Appeal the learned Commissioner (Appeals) applied the same valuation to this import and reduced the value from US $ 1200 per MT to US $ 800 per MT by applying Valuation Rule 6.
3. Heard learned DR Shri Sudarsan, who submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have remanded the matter to the original authority before whom this acceptance of contemporaneous import at US $ 800 per MT was submitted. He, therefore, submits that the operation of the Order-in-Appeal impugned may be stayed. He reiterates the grounds of the stay which are identical to the revenue appeal’s grounds.
4. Heard Shri S. Murugappan, learned Advocate for the importer/respondents, who reiterates the memo of cross objection filed on 7-2-2000. He submits that his claim before the first appellate authority on contemporaneous imports at US $ 800 per MT was not a new claim because the same has been claimed before the original authority also, but copy of the bill was not then available. Therefore, this is not a new ground as claimed by the revenue in the stay application. He submits that the goods have already been cleared out of customs charge by valuing them at US $ 800 per MT as per the Order-in-Appeal but also to secure revenue interest by submission of a bond with a Bank Guarantee for the differential amount of duty. He, therefore, submits that there is no risk to revenue at all, hence there is no need to allow the stay application. He undertakes to keep the bond and bank guarantee alive till the pendency of this appeal.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions and records of the case. On a pritna facie consideration, we do not find any glaring error in the Order-in-Appeal impugned. We also find that since the interests of revenue are secured by a bond and bank guarantee covering the differential amount of duty arising out of the difference in valuation declaration of US $ 1200 per MT and US $ 800 per MT, therefore, there is no need to grant any stay against the order, particularly because the goods are cleared out of customs charge. Therefore, the stay application is rejected subject to the respondents continuing the bond and bank guarantee to be alive till the pendency of this appeal. Ordered accordingly.