UNIK TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are against two similar orders of the Commissioner of Customs, wherein (a) the goods imported by the appellants and sought to be cleared under three Bills of Entry each were confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option for redemption, (b) the transaction value declared in the Bills of Entry was rejected and the value was enhanced to US 900 (CIF) per MT under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and duty demanded accordingly under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, and (c) penalties were imposed on the importers under Section 112(a) of the Act.

(2.) Each of the appellants had imported what was declared as "Turkish Poppy Seed Second Grade Old Crop" and filed Bills of Entry for clearing the same. While M/s. Unik Traders declared the value of the goods in their three Bills of Entry as US 605, 605 and 602 per MT (CIF), M/s. Diamond Traders declared it in their Bills of Entry as US 608.94, 605 and 605 per MT (CIF). The total quantities declared by M/s. Unik Traders and M/s. Diamond Traders were 173 MTs and 93 MTs respectively. The goods were packed in paper bags. The imports were subjected to examination, whereupon it was found by Customs authorities that the paper bags carried the marking: "White Poppy Seeds Zimra Limited". Samples were drawn from the consignments and sent to the Spices Board, Cochin. The test reports of the Spices Board were to the effect that -

(3.) Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel submits that the test reports of the Spices Board were not reliable inasmuch as what was reported was denied by the analyst in his cross -examination. Counsel has drawn our attention to the relevant details of the cross -examination. It has also been pointed out that the importers' request for cross -examining the senior technical personnel in the Spices Board was turned down by the Commissioner. Regarding valuation, the Counsel submits that, barring the contemporaneous Bill of Entry, no other evidence is available in this case. It has been argued that the value shown in the said Bill of Entry cannot be adopted.