RAJESHWARI COPPER PRODUCERS Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we take up the appeal.

(2.) THE appellants had imported what was described as "Copper Scrap Druid" in the relevant invoice, and, for its clearance, filed a Bill of Entry, wherein the goods was declared as Copper Scrap Druid (copper 30% - 32%). The price declared by the importer was US 320 per MT. The assessing authority enhanced the value to US 600 per MT and, on this basis, the goods were cleared on payment of duty, against a bond executed by the party. A sample of the goods, tested by the Chemical Examiner of the Department, was found to contain 49.1% of copper. The importer did not ask for retest. However, when they received a formal demand notice dated 6.10.2004 from the proper officer of Customs, wherein the test results were mentioned and also the basis of enhancement of value [contemporaneous import of similar goods containing 49% copper scrap] was noted, the party submitted a letter to the Customs officer requesting for a review of the chemical report as also for personal hearing. The request for review of chemical test was not accepted, but a hearing was given. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, thereafter, confirmed the demand of differential duty of Rs. 1,19,842/ - against the assessee. Against this decision of the original authority, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), complaining inter alia that no documentary evidence of any contemporaneous import was supplied to them to enable them to verify as to whether the subject import tallied with the parameters laid down under Rules 5 and 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Though this grievance was noted by learned Commissioner (Appeals) he did not examine the same. The appellate Commissioner, after hearing the appellants, affirmed the Assistant Commissioner's decision. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants reiterates the above grievance of the party and submits that negation of natural justice is involved in the proceedings below. Learned Jt. CDR submits that the test report clearly brought out misdeclaration of the goods and, incidentally, misdeclaration of its value also. The enhancement of value is, therefore, prima facie justifiable. No retest was sought for by the importer. In fact, by executing a bond, they had bound themselves to abide by whatever test report on the sample of the goods. In the circumstances, according to learned Jt. CDR, the matter could be disposed of on merits at this level and need not be remanded.