IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA S.C. Agrawal and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ. MAYA ENTERPRISES Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA Civil Appeal No. 6314 of 1994, decided on 2-9-1998

Import - Misdeclaration of value and goods - Tribunal confirmed the findings of Collector of Customs that the imported goods were evaporator assembly as against the `evaporator’ declared, that the country of origin of 210 pieces misdeclared as Thai origin while the goods were of Japanese origin, that the prices for customs purposes have been under declared and import was unauthorised as the licence produced for clearance was not valid and did not cover the goods imported - Findings of Collector as confirmed by the Tribunal are all questions of facts and did not suffer from an error of law - No ground is made out for interference with such findings - Differential duty, redemption fine and penalty confirmed - Sections 111(d), 112 and 125 of Customs Act, 1962.

[Order]. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal’) dated February 14, 1994 whereby the Tribunal, has upheld the order passed by the Collector, Customs, Kandla dated March 8, 1991 directing confiscation of the goods imported by the appellant and imposition of the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- and directing that the goods could be released subject to payment of reademption fine of Rs. 20,00,000/-. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal has reduced the penalty from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- and the redemption fine from Rs. 20,00,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/-. The matter relates to import of 1564 evaporators for automobiles under two separate Bills of Lading. 1456 units were of Thai origin and 98 units were of Japanese origin. The value of the said evaporators as disclosed by the appellant was S $ 45 per piece for evaporator of Thai origin and S $ 60 per piece for evaporator of Japanese origin. A show cause notice dated December 8/10, 1990 was served on the appellant wherein it was stated thus :-

the goods have been misdeclared : they were found to be “(1) complete cooling unit with blower assembly, as against the `evaporator’ declared;

the value of the goods has been under-declared with a view (2) to evade payment of appropriate customs duty; and

The subject goods have been imported unauthorisedly inasmuch (3) as they were not covered by the endorsement on the licence produced for clearance."

2.In the said show cause notice it was also stated that some of the goods were without marks; in some cases marking were torn-off in identical manner of all the sides and that there were also some discrepancies with regard to the number of pieces and the country of origin. By order dated March 8, 1991 the Collector of Customs found that :-

The country of origin of 210 pieces has been misdeclared as “(1) Thailand while the goods were of Japanese origin.

The goods imported were evaporator assembly and that the (2) evaporator assembly was more than a evaporator.

Prices for customs purposes have been under-declared. The (3) correct assessable values were determined as Singapore $ 220 per piece for good of Japanese origin and as Singapore $ 165 per piece for goods of Thai origin, as against the declared assessable value of Singapore $ 60 and Singapore $ 45 respectively.

The import was unauthorised as the licence produced for (4) clearance was not valid and did not cover the goods imported."

3.The Collector demanded a differential customs duty of Rs. 64,72,362/- and while ordering confiscation of the goods imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 20,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has agreed with the findings recorded by the Collector but has recorded the redemption fines and penalty as indicated above.

4.We have heard Shri Kailash Vasdev, the learned Counsel for the appellant on this appeal and we have carefully perused the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the Collector. In our view the findings recorded by the Collector which have been upheld by the Tribunal relate to questions of fact and we do not find that they suffer from an error of law. No ground is made out for interferring with the findings recorded by the Collector which have been upheld by the Tribunal regarding misdeclaration of the value of the goods that were imported by the appellant.

5.Shri Vasdev has submitted that the penalty and the redemption fine which have been imposed by the Tribunal may be reduced in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. We are unable to accept the said contention of Shri Vasdev. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Vacancies

WTO Instruments

WCO Rulings

Val. Manual

CESTAT

S. C. Decisions

Related Links