ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of 500 Aerial parts (LNB – BCH027) and the value was declared as Rs. 1,85,734/-. The examination revealed the goods to be “C” Band, Low Noise Block Converters, Model BCH 027. The goods appeared to have been undervalued. During subsequent search operations some incriminating documents in the form of fax addressed to the appellant by his Uncle revealed modus operandi of under-valuation. Customs authorities also recovered two invoices bearing the same number in regard to identical goods. Based on such incriminating evidence, the Department held that the goods were grossly under-valued and since these were parts of Dish Antenna, they were not eligible to be cleared without the licence since these were consumer goods under ITC Public Notice 32 (PN) 92-97 dated 17.6.1992.
2. Arguing for the appellants, the Ld. Advocate submitted that reliance could not be placed on invoices related only to “S” Band goods and the goods imported were not “S” Band and therefore, the value adopted on the basis of such invoices cannot be accepted. In any case, he submitted that fine and penalty imposed are harsh and excessive. He cites the case of Mis. Shyam Electronics v. Collector of Customs to plead leniency. He submitted that in that case even though confiscation of goods due to under-valuation was confirmed, penalty and redemption fine were reduced.
3. Ld. D.R. submitted that both invoices and fax messages recovered clearly establish the modus operandi involving under-valuation of these goods. The modus operandi was that part of money was paid by his Uncle in Canada and only the remaining part was paid by him in India. Moreover, the fact that two invoices had been issued with same number with identical goods indicated that for Customs Law purposes invoice with lower value was obtained and the remaining value was covered by another invoice.
4. We have heard both sides. The fax messages indicate the modus operandi that was adopted. The existence of these fax messages addressed to the appellants is not denied. This clearly indicates how pieces were under-valued. Apart from this, the proceedings indicate the value of LNB – BCH – 027 to all other buyers as $30 or 32 and the goods were invoiced only as $10. The Collector at internal Page-5 of her Order has referred to query as to how difference between true value and value for customs was proposed to be arranged. In any case, the fax messages and invoices clearly indicate how transactions were under-valued. These coupled with the fact that similar imports were valued at 30 to 32$ clearly establishes under-valuation. We do not, therefore, find any infirmity in the Order of Collector in arriving at a finding that the goods were under-valued. There is also no infirmity in Order of Collector (Appeals) in holding that these were parts of consumer goods which needed the import license since the appellant was not actual manufacturer.
5. In view of this, we hold that goods were liable to confiscation. We uphold the order regarding confiscation of the goods and denial of benefit under ITC Policy. Considering, however, the facts and circumstances of the case and the value of the goods, we reduce redemption fine to Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) and penalty to Rs. 75,000 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only). Subject to this modification appeal is otherwise rejected and impugned order upheld.