JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Vide the impugned order No. 128/2001-CAU dt. 30.7.2001 the Commissioner of Customs (Sea), Chennai has enhanced the value of the Betel Nuts imported by the appellants and has consequently confirmed the demand of differential duty along with imposition of personal penalty upon the appellants. In addition, the consignment imported by them has been confiscated with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs.
2. We have heard Ld. Counsel Shri S, Murugappan for the appellants and Ld. DR Shri A, Jayachandran for the Revenue.
3. It is seen that the appellants declared the value of Betel Nuts as US $ 600 per M.T, The goods were described in the documents as “Betel Nuts –second grade”. The total value of the goods was to the tune of Rs. 12,47,512 with the duty amounting to Rs. 4,99,005.
4. On examination of the goods by the Officers of the DRI, it was found that the total consignment of 47 M.Ts. of Betel Nuts consists of split as well as whole betel nuts. Based upon the imports of split grade by one M/s. Diamond Traders, Chennai declaring the value of the same US $ 780 PMT and one by M/s. Gandhi Exports Inc., Mumbai declaring the value of price of whole grade betel nuts as US $ 1100 per M.T. proceedings were initiated against the appellants alleging under-valuation of the Betel Nuts. Accordingly, show-cause-notice was issued proposing confirmation of the demand of differential duty of customs to the tune of Rs. 2,40,301 and imposition of penalty upon them.
5. During the course of adjudication proceedings, the appellants contended that the price declared by them was the invoice price and the same is required to be accepted by the Revenue authorities. It was submitted -that the evidence produced by the Revenue cannot be called contemporary imports inasmuch as the same were different in weight as also periods and the betel nuts being agriculture product, their keeps on price fluctuating.
6. The above contention of the appellants was not accepted by the adjudicating authority who passed the impugned order. Hence the present appeal.
7. Strong reliance has been placed before us upon the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of Saudagar Exports and Ors. v. CC, Chennai (Final Order Nos. 698 to 700/2002 dt. 11.6.2002) wherein the same set of evidence i.e. Invoices of M/s. Diamond Traders and Gandhi Exports, Mumbai were held to be not sufficient evidence to prove the charges of the under valuation. After appreciating the said invoices the Tribunal held that the same being different in period and quantity cannot be called contemporaneous imports in respect of the imports made in January 2000 by those appellants. The period of imports in the present appeal is even after the imports made by the appellants in the earlier appeals inasmuch as the Bill of Entries in the present case were filed in February 2000. The Tribunal held that the transaction value has to be adopted unless the department can produce the objective reasons and strong evidence showing that the declared value was not bona fide. Onus to prove so lies upon the Revenue.
8. We also notice that there is nothing in the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs to show that the physical characteristics, quality and reputation at the time of the importation of the goods is identical to the invoices relied upon by the Revenue. The appellants have contended that the betel nuts is an agricultural produce and the value of the same is dependent upon the quality of such produce which differs from season to season, depending upon a number of factors. In the absence of any other evidence reflecting upon the under-valuation of the imports, we are of the view that the department actions for enhancement of the value is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.