PINE CHEMICAL SUPPLIERS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 are against the order dated August 21, 1990 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. C/987-989/89-A arising out of the order dated December 13, 1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dismissing the appeals against the order dated March 7, 1988 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs.

(2.) The appellants imported Gum Rosin declaring its CIF value at USS 410 per metric tonne according to the Bill of Entry which was supplied by M/s. China National Native Product and Animal By-products Imports and Exports Corporation. The declaration of the imported goods made by the appellants described it as 'OFF grade Gum Rosin' which was the description of the quality of goods also in the Bill of Entry. It appears that as a result of some, intelligence reports gathered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay that Gum Rosin of standard or superior grades having higher CIF value was being imported and misdeclared as 'OFF' grade, the import of the consignments of Gum Rosin covered by the Bill of Entry in the present cases was taken up for detailed investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay. During-the course of investigation under supervision of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) representative samples were drawn from these goods and forwarded for test to ascertain the exact grade and quality of the Gum Rosin imported by the appellants. According to the test reports dated 19-11-1987 and 5-12-1987 of the Customs House Laboratory, the imported goods in question was found to be of 'WG' grade confirming the intelligence gathered by the DRI, Bombay. These test reports, therefore, indicated that the goods were liable to confiscation under Sec. 111(m) in addition to imposition of penalty on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(3.) The appellants expressly informed the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in writing by letters dated 2-2-1987 and 28-12-1987 that they did not dispute the test reports and that they also waived the notice to show cause against confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty required to be given under Section 124 of the Act, stating clearly that the appellants were ready to get the matter adjudicated for this purpose by the customs authorities; and that they needed the goods urgently which may be released to them on their personal bond or guarantee. This request of the appellants was accepted, the goods released to them on that basis and adjudication proceeded with. The Deputy Collector of Customs by order dated March 7, 1988 held that the contemporary CIF price of 'WG" grade of Gum Rosin was USS 465 per metric tonne as evident from an invoice of the same supplier for supply of 'WG' grade of Gum Rosin imported by another importer and cleared through Bombay Port and, therefore, the ascertained CIF assessable value of the goods imported by the appellants was USS 465 per metric tonne. The difference in the customs duty was determined on such valuation of goods for purposes of assessment in accordance with Section 14 of the Act. On this basis, the Deputy Collector of Customs determined the fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 and the penalty for improper importation of goods under Sec. 112 of the Act in the three cases at Rs. 1,40,000 + Rs. 70,000; Rs. 1, 15,000 + Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 1,40000 + Rs. 70,000/- respectively. The importers (appellants) preferred appeals to the Collector (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Act which were dismissed. The further appeals to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129A of the Act were dismissed except for reduction in the quantum of fine and penalty. The only relief granted by the Appellate Tribunal was reduction in the fine to Rs. 70,000/-; Rs. 57,500/-; and Rupees 70,000/ respectively and a similar reduction in the penalty to Rs. 35,000/-; Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- respectively. These further appeals have been preferred against the Tribunal's order.