JINDAL FIBRES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals are disposed of by a common order as the issue involved in this case in these appeals is same though of different parties. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the importers M/s. Jindal Fibres, M/s. Anita Exports, M/s. Safari Fine Clothing are the units situated in Kandla SEZ (hereinafter referred to as KASEZ). They were given Letter of Permission and Letter of Approval by KASEZ authorities. On an information that the main appellant herein have misdeclared and grossly under -valued the consignment, containers of goods declared as having old and used worn clothing were examined. On investigation, it was found that the goods which were declared were tallying in some of the containers while in some of the containers, the goods were not tallying with the Customs declaration inasmuch as the goods were already sorted, segregated and processed in the country of origin and hence they appeared to be finished goods required no further sorting, segregation, re -conditioning or re -processing. The lower authorities held that LOA had a condition that the imports and local purchase will be permitted on all items except those listed in prohibited list for import and export. However, there was no explicit mention as regards the goods permitted for DTA clearance. On the basis of examination, it appeared to the lower authorities that the importer had resorted to misdeclaration in description and quality of goods and non -declaration of parameters which is brand, grade, specification which are relevant to the value and it was revealed during the examination that correct grade of imported worn clothing though available with the importer, were not declared deliberately in the Bill of Entry at the time of import. Statements of the partners were recorded. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, a show cause notices were issued to the main importers as well as the partners of the said importers to show cause as to why the declared value be not rejected and re -determined in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules and the goods be not confiscated under the provisions of Section 111(m) and Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 and why the penalties be not imposed under Section 113 on the company firm as well as the partners. The appellant assessee -company as well as the partners argued the case and sought time for filing detailed written submissions and subsequently filed the same, denying all the allegations and not accepting the charge of misdeclaration. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the contentions and upheld the charges on the appellant and rejected the declared value and also confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and also imposed penalties on the appellant -assessees as well as the partners of the said firm.

(2.) LD . Counsel Shri J.C. Patel, Shri Anil Balani, Ms. Shilpa Balani appeared on behalf of all the appellants. Ld. Counsel would submit as under:

(3.) 1 Without prejudice to the submissions that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to assess the value and re -determine the same, it is submitted that even otherwise on merits the re -determination of value made by the Commissioner is untenable in law.