MAHARASHTRA OVERSEAS Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants imported goods described as "22.210 MTs of Acrylic Plastic Sheet Offcuts." The value declared was US 450 PMT (CIF). Examination indicated that while 5.3. MTs were offcuts, 17 MTs consisted of sheets. In reply to queries the importers claimed that the goods were defective on account of thickness variation, colour fade etc. They also claimed that the term offcuts applied where a sheet was cut from any size. The importers waived issue of show cause notice but were heard by the Jt. Commissioner. He rejected the claim that the goods were offcuts holding that they were regularly sized sheets. On this ground he held the goods to be liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. He observed that similar goods namely non -prime acrylic sheets were earlier assessed at US 850 PMT CIF. He enhanced the valuation of 17 MTs of the imported lot and confirmed differential duty on enhanced valuation of Rs. 1,83,389/ -. He confiscated the goods but allowed their redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,75,000/ -. He in addition imposed a penalty of Rs. 55,000/ - on the importers. In his order in appeal the Commissioner maintained the lower order. An order passed by him in the case of another importer in identical circumstances where he had given relief to the importer was cited before him. He however distinguished it on facts.

(2.) SHRI J.F. Pochkhanwala Sr. Counsel appearing along with Shri H.R. Shetty advocate emphasised that the facts in the case were on part with the case of the other importer namely M/s. Sun Acrylics Pvt. Ltd. He quoted from both the orders to establish his point. He claimed that the sheet size in the Sun Acrylics case was in fact bigger than in the present case. He submitted certificates of traders and the suppliers justifying the description "Offcuts". He claimed that both authorities had accepted that the goods were not of first quality. Therefore there were no grounds for enhancement of the value. It was claimed that except for the mere mention that imports had been noticed at higher valuation of similar goods, nothing has been disclosed in the order. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Eicher Tractors cc claimed that there was no ground for denying the transaction value. He further maintained that at all times the importers had offered that the goods be mutilated but the offer was not considered fevourably.

(3.) SHRI BB Sarkar supports the commissioner's order.