Directorate General of Valuation Central Board of Excise & Customs Government of India

Order Nos. A/347 & 348/WZB/2004/C-I...

Order Nos. A/347 & 348/WZB/2004/C-I dt. 19.3.2004

2004 (64) RLT 634 (CESTAT-Mum.)
(In the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai)

Present : Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (Judicial)
Shri Moheb Ali M., Member (Technical)

(Final Order Nos. A/347 & 348/WZB/2004/C-I dt. 19.3.2004 in Appeal Nos. C/622 & 623/2003 –Mum.)

Assessable value - Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 – Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (DPIG) Rules, 1988 – Contemporaneous import – declared value in respect of some of the goods has been rejected and value has been re-determined on the basis of contemporaneous imports- re-determination of value is accepted.

(Para 12)

Cases Referred :

  1. Eicher Tractors vs. CC, Mumbai 2000 (41) RLT 621 (SC) – Referred [Para 5]
  2. Kumar Associates, 1993 (65) ELT 500- Referred [Para 10]
  3. O.K. Industries Vs. CC, 988(37)ELT 207-Referred [Para10]
  4. Spices Trading Corpn. Vs. CC, 1998 (27) RLT 906 (CEGAT) - Referred [Para 10]

Per Moheb Ali M. :

These appeals arose out of the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. In the impugned order, the Commissioner rejected the invoice value, determined the assessable value of the goods as Rs.18,64,176/- and the duty to be paid on the goods as Rs.10,73,051/-. He confiscated the goods under Section 111 (d) & (m) and allowed them to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs.23,20,335/-. He further imposed penalties of Rs. 8,71,547/- on Shri Qazi Shabbir Mustafa under Section 114A/112 (a) and an equal amount on Shri Arif Haji Gaffar under the same sections of the Customs Act.

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate and submissions made by the learned DR.

On the issue whether the department can compare the value declared by the appellants in respect of some of the goods (8 items) with the value arrived at by the department in some other contemporaneous imports, we find that the Commissioner has given reason as to why such comparison is correct. In a situation where the goods were found to be mis-declared by other importers also, there is no reason as to why the loaded value in those imports cannot be compared with the declared value of the present consignment to arrive at the correct value. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the Commissioner’s finding insofar as he re-determined the value of 8 items referred to in the adjudication order. The declared value of these goods is Rs.2,21,114/-. The Commissioner, on the basis of contemporaneous imports, arrived at a value of Rs. 9,22,540/-. He arrived at the duty liable to be Rs. 5,37,919/-. We accept this finding of the Commissioner.

Company Name and Address: