MOHAN SALES (INDIA) Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the confiscation of a consignment of Batteries imported by the appellant. The appellant filed Bill of entry No. 155017, dated 6 -11 -2000 at Bombay Customs. The goods were declared in the Bill of entry as under : -

(2.) Thus, examination revealed that the appellant's declaration of the goods as "not rechargeable" was false and the goods were actually rechargeable. The appellant had produced invoice dated 20th October 2000 from Busino Industrial Ltd., Hong Kong along with Bill of entry. This invoice also did not indicate whether the batteries were chargeable or not. It only described the goods as "Hi -watt Brand Ni -CD Battery, AA Size battery, AAA Size Battery". The per piece price, declared in the invoice for the two varieties were US 0.0295 and US 0.2315. The Customs authorities also felt that the value declared was also false and too low, They initiated confiscation and other proceedings. The impugned order has noted that the "floor prices noticed in the Customs for the two varieties were 0. -1609 and 0.2140 and the approved valuation for the batteries was Rs. 7.50 per piece and Rs. 10/ - per piece".

(3.) The appellant explained that the clearing clerk had by mistake added the description "Not rechargeable". They also contended that such statement should not be treated as misdeclaration inasmuch as NI -CD Nickel Cadmium battery are rechargeable, making it clear that the expansion of description by the clearing clerk was only a mistake. It is also being pointed out that the appellant had written to the Customs authorities on 11 -11 -2000 requesting for amendment of the Bill of entry. The lower authorities rejected the appellant's explanation and held that description and value of the goods had been misdeclared. The Additional Commissioner revalued the goods @ Rs. 7.50 per piece and Rs. 10/ - per piece. Thus, fixing the value at Rs. 1.85 lakhs as against the declared value of about Rs. 34,000/ -. The redemption fine of Rs. 90,000/ - was imposed. So also a penalty of Rs. 15,000/ -. The appellant took up the matter before Commissioner (Appeals). That Commissioner found no merit in the case.