Judgements

Pashupati Traders vs Commissioner Of Customs (I) … on 7 June, 2001

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Pashupati Traders vs Commissioner Of Customs (I) … on 7 June, 2001


ORDER

Gowri Shankar, Member(T)

1. The application is for waiver of deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on the applicant under clause (a) of Section 112 of the Act.

2. We have heard both sides.

3. The Commissioner has enhanced the value of consignment, comprising mainly electronic calculators, imported by the applicant, after declining to accept the transaction value on the ground that the description of the goods had been misdeclared. He has order their confiscation clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act with an option to redeem them on payment of fine. Counsel for the applicant submit that the goods are still pending clearance.

4. The principal contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the reports of the market value upon which the Commissioner has placed reliance, have not been made available to the applicant. Prima facie, this appears to be so. However, we do not see how this makes significant difference at this stage. Given the fact of mis-declaration of the model numbers in the packing list attached to the consignment, which is not denied by the applicant, the Commissioner is right in not accepting the invoice value as representing the transaction value. He was, thus, justified in determining the value on his best judgement. The goods are stated to have been manufactured by Citizen and Casio in China. We asked the counsel for the applicant whether he could provide us the value of such goods manufactured in China and he was unable to do so.

5. On these facts, we think a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- towards the penalty would be appropriate. On such deposit being made within a month from the receipt of this order, we waive deposit of the remaining penalty and stay its recovery.

6. Compliance on 9th August, 2001.

7. We are unable to accept the request for out of turn hearing. Given the fact of misdeclaration and the claim that was made in defence of the declared value, that the goods were stock lot, which on the face of it is untenable, we are unable to find material to justify out of turn hearing and dismiss the application made for this purpose.