KAMVIR MEHTA Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order No. SIB/11/95-CUS dated 3.4.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Cochin 9 (Ext. P14). By this order, the goods in question were held liable to be confiscated under S.111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the goods being not available for confiscation, the revised differential duty of Rs. 9,96,212/- and the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs were imposed and the petitioner was called upon to pay the same.

(2.) The petitioner is the proprietor of a firm called M/s. Shine Star Industry, New Delhi. It is a small scale industrial unit. He is engaged in the business of assembling photocopying machines by importing some reconditioned components of photocopying machines from Singapore under a valid licence. Earlier, he had imported similar articles through the Cochin Port from M/s. Drumkin Impex, Singapore. On submission of the Bill of Entry dated 21.7.1994 (Ext. P2), duty was assessed at Rs. 1,80,411/- on the basis of the transaction value and the consignment was cleared. In respect of the next consignment of identical goods, which is the consignment in question, exported by M/s. Drumkin Impex as per the purchase order of the petitioner (Ext. P3) which arrived at the Cochin Port, the petitioner filed the Bill of Entry (Ext. P5) on 14.9.1994. An open examination was conducted in which the entire consignment was examined in detail. A copy of the invoice issued by M/s. Drumkin Impex, a copy of the purchase order and all other relevant documents were produced and ultimately the goods were cleared. There is also an official endorsement as "passed out of custom charge" under the signature of the competent officer dated 20.9.1994. The legitimate customs duty of Rs. 3,66,769/- was paid and the goods were released. Thereafter, the goods were taken out of the customs area and while they were being loaded in a vehicle for transportation, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short, DRI) prevented removal of the goods on the ground that the DRI has ordered stoppage of the goods. No written order was served on the petitioner at any time and the reason for stoppage of the goods was not disclosed. However, on the basis of an interlocutory order dated 2.12.1994, passed by this Court in CMP No. 25764 of 1994, the goods were released on furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of the equivalent amount of the duty.

(3.) A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner later by the Commissioner of Customs (Ext. P11) to which he gave a reply (Ext. P12). It is contended that without properly appreciating the relevant evidence adduced by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Customs rejected the explanation and passed the impugned order.