SARAS INTERNATIONAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) WE have examined the records and heard both sides. We have also examined a sample of the imported goods produced by the appellants.

(3.) LD . Commissioner (Appeals) found that the goods were prints of scenery printed in glossy finish, in rectangular shape and 8' x 6' in size. She also noted the words printed overleaf. We find that these observations of the lower appellate authority are correct. What has been printed on the back side of the sample shown to us is essentially the address of the printers in England. We do not find any sort of printing on the sample making it an advertisement material falling under Customs Tariff Heading 49.11 as declared by the appellants in the Bill of Entry. Obviously, therefore, there is misdescription of the goods by the appellants. When the Customs authorities held the goods to be consumer goods covered by the Negative List of imports under the EXIM policy, it was the importer's burden either to show that the goods were not prohibited for importation under OGL or to produce a specific import licence for the goods. The present appellants could do neither of these. Therefore, the authorities have rightly found the goods to be prohibited for importation under OGL and have rightly held the same to be liable to confiscation. However, as regards valuation of the goods, we find that no reason whatsoever has been stated by any of the lower authorities for enhancing the value of the goods to Rs. 38,000/ -. Such unreasonable enhancement of value has had an obvious impact on the quantum of redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation. We find that, though the charge of misdescription levelled against the importer stands proved, there is no evidence on record to establish the charge of under -valuation. In this view of the matter, the penalty imposed on the appellants is also excessive.