DHARA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Dhara Enterprises have filed the present Appeal being aggrieved with the Adjudication Order No. 331/2002, dated 22 -7 -2002, by which the Commissioner has enhanced the value of the goods imported by them and has confiscated the same with an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 7 lakhs besides imposing a penalty of Rs. 70,000/ -.

(2.) Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported 2,000 pieces of second -hand and used monitors and filed Bill of Entry on 5 -7 -2002 declaring the value to be US 12.50 per piece; that as per the examination at Dock the goods were used, but not reconditioned monitors which were of different brand and models; that the report further, mentioned that the value may be determined on the basis of contemporaneous imports; that no basis has been disclosed in the impugned Order for discarding the transactional value that it has been stated that in the recent past similar old and used monitors have been valued at US 16 per unit. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that in the case of Noor Niryat v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, the Tribunal, vide Final Order No. C/II/ 3378/WZB/2002, dated 15 -11 -2002 has confirmed the value at the rate of US 8 per monitor; that they had declared the value to US 12.5 which is even more than the value accepted by the Tribunal in the case of Noor Niryat; that therefore this value declared by them should be accepted. Finally, learned Advocate submitted that the monitors were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act; that the monitors are capital goods which do not require import licence for importation; that in any case, the redemption fine is not sustainable as no basis for imposing such fine has been disclosed in the Order; that no penalty is imposable on them.

(3.) Countering the arguments Shri R.D. Negi, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the Adjudicating Authority had enhanced the value on the basis of past cases as well as on the price at which similar type of monitors were being offered for sale as per newspaper cutting and that the Adjudicating Authority has also given certain discounts and arrived at a fair value of US 16 per unit. He, further, submitted that computer monitor cannot be considered to be capital goods as these are used by individual by any office, technical institutions, shops, etc., that old and used goods other than capital goods of less than 10 years old are not permissible for import under EXIM Policy without valid licence; that as no valid import licence has been produced by the Appellants, the import is unauthorized and the goods are liable for confiscation; that the redemption fine and penalty are not excessive at all.