- (1.) M/s. Padia Sales Corporation, Delhi, ('The Corporation') imported a consignment of seventy five pieces of bearings called "GPZ Brand roller bearings No. 10777/670" from USSR and declared the total CIF value as Rs. 7,51,030/-, at the rate of Rs. 50,000/ - per bearing. The Corporation further sought the clearance of the consignment under Open General Licence (OGL) in terms of the Import Policy 1985-88. On verification it was found by the Customs Department that the price of the bearing per piece was Rs. 1,79,631.76 and not Rupees 50,000/- as claimed by the Corporation. It was further found by the Department that the goods could not be cleared under OGL and as such the goods were liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). Accordingly, a show cause notice dated March 18, 1988 was issued to the Corporation alleging under valuation to the extent of Rs. 28,37,432/- and further for the confiscation of the goods on the ground of misdeclaration. The case was adjudicated by the Collector of Customs, Bombay and by his order dated July 14, 1988 he enhanced the value of the imported bearings from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,79,631.76 per piece and further confiscated the bearings under Section III(d) read with Section III (m) of the Act. The Corporation was, however, given an option to redeeem the goods on payment of Rupees 10,00,000/ -. The appeal filed by the Corporation before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Collector of Customs, Bombay, for fresh adjudication in the light of the correspondence produced by the Corporation on the record. The Collector by his fresh order of March 27, 1991, reiterated his earlier order except that the redemption fine was reduced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/-, penalty of Rupees 50,000/ - was imposed on the Corporation and it was held that Section III (m) of the Act was not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Corporation challenged the order of the Collector before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Corporation that the goods were covered by the OGL and as such the order of confiscation under Section III (d) of the Act was set aside. Consequently the redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- was also set aside. The Tribunal also accepted the contention of the Corporation that on remand the Collector had no authority to impose the penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed by the Collector. So far as the price of the imported goods was concerned, the Tribunal on re-appreciation of the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the Corporation had under-invoiced the price of the goods and the Collector had rightly fixed the price per bearing at Rs. 1,79,631.76, The Tribunal, thus, partially accepted the appeal of the Corporation but dismissed the same on the question of valuation of the goods. This appeal by the Corporation under S. 130-E of the Act is against the order of the Tribunal.
(2.) We have heard Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant Corporation. He contended that the invoiced price was a result of contract between the supplier and the appellant entered into after negotiations. No special treatment was given to the appellant by the supplier. The learned counsel invited our attention to various letters placed on the record and taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand relied upon the letter dated January 20, 1987 to show that the price offered to the appellant was a special price. In addition he placed strong reliance on the printed price list issued by the manufacturers which showed the value of the imported bearings as Rs. 1,79,631.76 per piece.
(3.) The Collector of Customs, Bombay, on the basis of the material produced before him came to the conclusion that the invoiced price of the imported goods was not acceptable. The Tribunal, in appeal, independently reappreciated the evidence and came to the same conclusion. We do not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the authorities under the Act.;