MAHALAXMI INTERNATIONAL EXPORTS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant M/s. Mahalaxmi International Exports, imported during 1996 and 1997 some consignments of watch components at Jaipur. They were assessed to duty and allowed to be cleared by the Customs Authorities. Subsequently, three show cause notices were issued in 2001 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence alleging that those consignments had been under -valued and there -by evaded customs duty. The main evidence relied upon in support of the allegation was that customs authorities at Hong Kong had reported to Indian Customs (through consul at Hong Kong) that the actual prices of the consignments were higher than the invoiced amounts and that false invoice values were put down in the invoice under an understanding between the foreign supplier and the Indian importer. The Hong Kong Customs Authorities also forwarded export declarations filed (in respect of some consignments) by the foreign supplier before Hong Kong Customs in support of their report that the price declarations were false. The notices, therefore proposed to recover the evaded customs duty, to confiscate the imported goods and to impose penalty on the appellant.

(2.) M/s. Mahalaxmi International refuted the allegations and stoutly maintained that the invoice prices were the actual transaction prices and the original assessments, which had been made, based on those assessments were correct. They tried to pick holes in the evidence produced in support of the allegation by pointing out that export declarations were not available in respect of some consignments, the export declarations had not been authenticated, and no evidence had been produced to show that the appellant had paid the alleged differential prices. Appellant's contentions were not accepted in adjudication and Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur passed Ms Order Nos. 26 to 28/2002, dated 18 -10 -2002 upholding the allegations and confirming the duty demand of about Rs. 17.71 Lakhs. The Commissioner also imposed an amount equal to the duty demanded as penalty on the importer. Further, the goods imported were confiscated and redemption fine of Rs. 20 Lakhs imposed. The present appeal is directed against those findings.

(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the appellant had not been shown the relied upon materials during the adjudication proceedings even though the impugned order states that the appellant was given opportunity to inspect the relied upon documents; but they did not avail of the opportunity. In order to redress this grievance, we directed the Revenue Authorities to make available the relied upon documents. After perusing those materials the learned Counsel for the appellant has made his final submissions. Written submissions have also been filed.