COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. NOVELTY EXPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After rejecting the stay petition filed by the Revenue we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides inasmuch as both the parties have been heard at length on merits.

(2.) As per the facts on record, the respondent had imported 57,383 metres of nylon coated fabric from Taiwan and filed Bill of Entry declaring the value of the same as US 0.23 per metre. The Revenue drew the samples of the said fabric which on test by the customs house laboratory showed that the same were coated with PVC and contained 32% to 34.7% of woven fabric and 65.3% to 68% of PVC. From the above test result, the reasonable doubt was entertained by the Revenue that there was misdeclaration in the description of the import and accordingly there was under -valuation of the fabric in question. Further inquiries were conducted and it was found that one M/s. Real Rain Wear, Mumbai had filed bill of entry for identical goods declaring the value of the same as US 0.80 per metre. The imported goods of M/s. Real Rain Wear were also from Taiwan. Shri Anil Nahar of the appellant -company in his statement dated 2 -8 -2000 deposed that the nylon coated fabric imported by them were meant for use in the manufacture of rain coats, over coats, bags, etc.

(3.) On the above basis, the respondents were issued with show cause notice proposing to enhance the unit price of nylon coated fabric in question. The notice cited the importation of the M/s. Real Rain Wear as contemporaneous import and proposed to adopt the value of US 0.80 per metre as the assessable value for their present import. The appellant during the course of adjudication before the Commissioner contended that the goods imported by them are not comparable with the import made by M/s. Real Rain Wear. They contended that the material imported by M/s. Real Rain Wear was never tested and as such their chemical composition is not on record. In the absence of the same it cannot be concluded that the goods imported by the respondents are identical to the goods imported by M/s. Real Rain Wear and as such the value of M/s. Real Rain Wear cannot be adopted in their case. They specifically contended that the goods imported by M/s. Real Rain Wear were different fabrics of different origin and of different width, weight, quantity and usage. In support of their submission they relied upon large number of earlier decisions of the Tribunal. The respondent also contended that they have cleared the goods at the enhanced value inasmuch as the season was getting over and demurrages were escalating. The respondent placed on record the manufacturer's invoice showing the value of the goods as 0.23 US and submitted that the sale price of the fabric in the indigenous market is only to the tune of Rs. 15 to 16 per metre and as such contended that there was no justification for enhancing the value of the fabric in which case the landed price of the same itself would come to Rs. 58 per metre.