[Mysore Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner – 2002 (141) E.L.T. A179  (S.C)]

 

Valuation (Customs) — Brewery hops imported from Germany — Undervaluation — Confiscation — Whether price declared by importer at DM 21.37 per kg. CIF was grossly undervalued and determination of value at DM 36 per kg. by Commissioner (Appeals) was very judicious and whether goods were liable to confiscation

 

The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.C. Banerjee and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil on 21-8-2001 disposed of the Civil Appeal No. 5193 of 1998, filed by Mysore Breweries Ltd. against CEGAT Order No. 1118/98-SZB, dated 2-6-1998 and reported in 2001 (136) E.L.T. 140 (Tri. - Chennai) (Mysore Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner). While disposing of and remanding the appeal, the Supreme Court passed the following order :

 

“Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the decision of this Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2001 (1) SCC 315. We do feel expedient to recall that by reason of certain disputed issues on facts the better course would be to remit the matter to the Tribunal, as the Tribunal did not have the opportunity to consider the decision of this Court in Eicher Tractors (supra).

 

In that view of the matter, the matters are remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in terms of law laid down by this Court. It is for the Tribunal to record that all the issues are left open and this is without prejudice to the rights and other contentions of the parties. The judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal. The appeal is disposed in the aforesaid terms.”

 

The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that price of brewery hops imported by the appellant were grossly undervalued and determination of value at DM 36 per kg. by Commissioner (Appeals) was very judicious. The Tribunal also upheld redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs.

 

A report relating to the admission of the appeal in question was published in 2002 (139) E.L.T. A298.

 

____________

 

Top