SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from OIO No. 20/2001, dated 10 -9 -2001 passed by Commissioner of Customs enhancing the value of imported goods declared as Watch Parts to the extent of the numbers indicated in the BE. The Department has also proceeded to search the premises of the appellants and had recovered 465 Nos. of Metal Bezels, 560 Nos. of Straps, 400 Nos. of Metal Bezels and 400 nos. of Metal back covers. They were seized under Mahazar dated 22 -11 -2000 on the belief that these Watch Parts were also undervalued in respect of earlier imports declared in BE 196641 dated 28 -10 -2000. In order to prove the undervaluation, the Department has relied on the value ascertained from HMT, Bangalore. This has been challenged on the ground that HMT, Bangalore cannot value the goods, which are imported from Hong Kong, on their own basis, which is not the method to be adopted for enhancing the value in terms of the Customs Act, Rules and Valuation Rules.

(2.) IT is the contention of the learned Counsel that the transaction value has not been challenged by producing any evidence of contemporaneous import during the same time and place and as such enhancing the value on the basis of getting an estimate done through M/s. HMT, Bangalore is contrary to the Customs Act and Rules and is not in terms of the judgments laid down by the Apex Court as in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Nippon Bearings (P) Ltd. - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); Leela Dhar Maheshwari v. CC (Import), Mumbai - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 207 (Tri. -Mumbai) or even the Boards Circular issued with regard to the revision of valuation.

(3.) THE learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Sources India Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi [2002 (140) E.L.T. 229 (Tri.) = 2001 (47) RLT 1005 (CEGAT -Del.)]. He attacked the confiscation of goods, which are already been cleared in 2002, and enhancing its value ipse dixit basis. He submitted that this is also not covered by law as once the goods have been cleared for home consumption, then they ceased to be open for assessment and in this regard, relied on the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Kishandas and Sons v. CC, Mumbai - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 227 (Tribunal) and that of the Bombay High Court judgment rendered in the case of Bussa Overseas and Properties P. Ltd. v. C.L Mahar, Asst. CC, Bombay - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 304 (Bom.) wherein it has been clearly held in para 7 that once the goods covered by consignment are cleared for home consumption, then they ceased to be imported goods as defined in Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequently not liable to confiscation. It has been held that power to confiscate thereafter can be exercised only in cases where the order of clearance is revised and cancelled.