SHIVA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the impugned order the Commissioner has confiscated a consignment of hair Shampoo imported in bulk packing [1000 Ltr. in each drum]. The Commissioner has also enhanced the value of the consignment from the declared value of about Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 12 lakhs. The confiscation has been made under Sections 111(d) and 118 of the Customs Act, 1962. An option to redeem the goods has been given on a payment of fine of Rs. 6 lakhs. There is also a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellant. Similar action has been taken with regard to 3800 labels valued at Rs. 3,800/ - also.

(2.) We have perused the records and heard both sides. The main contention of the appellant with regard to valuation of the goods is that the import was directly from the German manufacturer of the hair shampoo and there was no reason to doubt the transaction value or to enhance the same. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the impugned order does not bring out any reason for rejection of the transaction value. He points out that enquiry into the value of the goods was started because "this was the first import at this port. Market enquiry may be conducted and valuation may be done on the basis under Rule 10A" [Page No. 2, Para 4 of the impugned order]. It is the learned Counsel's contention that Rule 10A contains no provision that the result of market enquiry shall replace the transaction value in the case of first import at a port. The Counsel also contends that the basis adopted for fixation of value is also wholly unsound. It is pointed out that the imported hair shampoo was of "ODIN" brand manufactured by M/s. Glancos Ohder Strass, an unfamiliar brand in the Indian market. The lower authorities have adopted the value of well -established brands like "Nivea" to determine the assessable value of "ODIN". The learned Counsel emphasized that the prices of consumer goods vary vastly, based on brand familiarity. He, therefore, submits that the valuation based on the market value of a different brand yields reliable result.

(3.) With regard to the confiscation of the goods, the appellant does not make any serious objection. It was the condition of import that the hair shampoo in question should be having per unit CIF value of US 5 and above, and the import value is much lower than this. "