PARSHWANATH TRADERS AND CORE Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders impugned in these two appeals relate to imports of used tyres by the appellants. The tyres were declared in the import documents as old used worn out discarded tyres use in animal driven vehicles. The value of the used tyres was declared at US 75 PMT. The impugned orders confiscated the goods and imposed penalty on the appellants on the ground that the goods have been mis -declared in respect of description for the purpose of Import Policy and undervalued in regard to levy of customs duty.

(2.) The findings are based solely on market enquiry. It is the contention of the appellants that there was no reliable evidence justifying the findings. It has been pointed out that, even according to Panchanama prepared at the time of seizure, the tyres in question were old and used. Part of the consignments have also been accepted as tyres for animal drawn vehicles, tractor trolley etc. The objection is in respect of the remaining tyres as they have been held to be for LCVs. The appellants have pointed out that the witnesses whose evidence has been relied upon for the adjudication of the case are not expert whose testimony should carry conviction. According to the impugned orders themselves, the witnesses of the department are dealing in retreading of tyres. They have no experience in the trade of imported second -hand tyres, with regard to their price, use etc. Further, one of the witnesses (Shri Ram Kumar Verma) has stated that the signature contained in the expert opinion was not his casting serious doubts about the credibility of the investigation itself. The other witness, Shri S.S. Jadeja did not appear for cross -examination. The appellants also point out that, on account of use, the tyres under import had become not fit or safe for the high speeds of motor vehicles. They were accordingly declared as for animal driven vehicles.

(3.) With regard to the valuation of the goods, the appellants submission is that old and used tyres are sold on weight basis and there is no fixed, common, price for such goods. The appellants submit that the prices declared in the import documents were the actual prices paid and those transaction values merit acceptance for custom assessment.