KRISHNA TRADING CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present appeal, the appellant M/s Krishna Trading Co., Ahmedabad has challenged the order -in -appeal dated 6 -10 -1998 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta. The issue relates to valuation of the impugned goods and imposition of fine and penalty in respect of the same.

(2.) SHRI A.K. Chatterjee, learned Consultant for the appellant, submits that valuation of the goods was done based on the enquiries made in the Indian market. The Revenue has admitted that there was no record of contemporaneous import of identical or similar goods. As such it would be improper on the part of the Revenue to straightaway go to Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules for determining the value of the impugned goods. In this connection, the learned Consultant refers to the decision of the Special Bench A, New Delhi in Kumar Associates v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (65) E.L.T. 500 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that the determination of value by straightaway resorting to Rule 7 without proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 is in violation of the mandatory requirement as laid down in Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The learned Consultant further submits that the Revenue ought to have accepted the transaction value in the absence of imports at higher price of identical or similar goods. In this regard, he relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Collector of Customs vs. International Export Inc. reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 608 (Tribunal). As regards the imposition of fine, learned Consultant submits that it is double the value of the impugned goods as declared in the Bill of Entry. He states that there are no valid grounds to impose such a heavy fine. As regards the licensing aspect, Shri Chatterjee concedes that the drinking glasses come under restricted category and, therefore, specific import licence is required in respect of the same.

(3.) SHRI R.K. Roy, learned JDR representing the Revenue supports the reasoning given by the Commissioner in order -in -appeal. He submits that since there was no contemporaneous import, the only course left to the Revenue is that to make market enquiry to arrive at a value as per the best judgment under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules. As regards the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 5,87,000/ -, learned JDR depends upon the quantum of it inasmuch as the items imported are fancy items in respect of which no import licence was produced. As regards imposition of penalty of Rs. 47,000/ -, Shri Roy submits that having regard to the nature of offence committed, the same is quite reasonable.