RATILAL AND SONS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (IMPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the order impugned in these appeals the Commissioner has confirmed the proposal in the notice to enhance the value of three consignments of Petri dishes, and two consignments of hygrometers imported by the appellant, ordered confiscation of Petri dishes which were seized with an option to redeem them on payment of fine, imposed penalty on Ratilal Thakkar, the proprietor and his son, Hiten Thakkar.

(2.) The notice demanding duty is dated 13th April, 1999. The relevant dates for the five consignments in question, as defined in the Explanation below Section 28 of the Act, are 12 -6 -1997, 6 -1 -1998, 8 -5 -1998, 7 -10 -1998 and 26 -10 -1998. The notice did not invoke the extended period contained in the proviso under Sub -section (1) of Section 28. Therefore, the notice is barred by limitation for all but the last consignment, being beyond six months from the relevant date.

(3.) As for this consignment, the contention of the Counsel for the appellants is that there is no evidence of the undervaluation of Petri dishes by the appellant and the only evidence is the statement of Hiten Thakkar. Although this statement was not retracted it is evident from it that it is given under pressure in view of the fact that his father at that time was 76 years old and the goods were under detention. He also relies upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Industries v. CC - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321.