COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. VIRAT ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is an appeal filed by Revenue. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents. Further, it was fairly conceded by the Departmental Representative that the issue involved herein has already been considered and covered by decision of the Tribunal (Chennai Bench) as per Final Order No. 993 -999/2001 dated 14.6.2001.

(2.) The issue centers around the aspect of under -valuation of the impugned goods by the assessee. The prices have been compared with the price list of local sole selling agent of M/s Asahi Glass Company in South India i.e. M/s P.K. Jaipee and Company and also with the invoice of M/s Swathi Enterprises of Madras who also import tinted Float Glass from M/s Asahi Glass Company. According to the Department on comparison, the under -valuation has been quantified by arriving at the value under Section 14 (1) of Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The value arrived at was Rs. 14,57,351 whereas the value declared by the assessee was Rs. 8,66,113.84, thus resulting in undervaluation of Rs. 5,91,238. Accordingly the Show Cause Notice was issued demanding the differential duty of Rs. 5,02,551 and consequential penal provisions were invoked under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962.

(3.) The Commissioner who adjudicated the matter found the allegation that the goods were manufactured by M/s Republic Asahi Glass Company was not proved and further held that the investigation could not prove any underhand dealings between the suppliers and M/s Virat Enterprises. Further the Commissioner held that neither the importer nor the supplier have got mind of hiding the manufacturer's name. Admitting the plea of the importer that the goods were of mixed lot and poor quality and the supplier might have used the empty packages bearing such markings, the Commissioner observed that in the absence of any trade panel to show the quality and origin of the goods the manufacturer's name cannot be precisely determined and quality ascertained. Relying on certain judicial pronouncements which were in favour of the assessee, the Commissioner dropped the proceedings.