GENUINE SPARES (INDIA) Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur has enhanced the assessable value of goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 82 to Rs. 2,55,070 and Bill of Entry No. 83 to Rs. 15,55,311,confirmed differential duty demand of Rs. 5,60,655, confiscated goods, namely acrylic sheet off -cut and floor sweeping of plastics with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,40,000, imposed penalty of amount equal to the duty on the importer and penalties of Rs. 2,00,000 on the other two appellants who are partners of the importer. Hence these appeals.

(2.) At the outset, Shri C. Harishankar, Learned Counsel, raises a preliminary plea that the duty demand is barred by limitation as the show cause notice has been issued beyond the normal period of limitation and there is no finding that that the appellants had knowledge of any under -valuation as they had purchased the goods at the price shown in the invoice received from their supplier and had no knowledge as to why their supplier M/s. Sineximco Pvt. Ltd. Singapore were selling goods to them at a price less than the price the supplier paid for purchase of the goods from M/s. Gemini Corporation Antwerp Belgium. In this connection appellants rely upon the Tribunal's order in the case of Taito Watch Manufacturing Industries and two Ors. v. CC, Jaipur Final Order No. 884 to 886/2004 -NB(A) dated 24.8.2004. Appellants, therefore, pray that the demands and penalties may be set aside on this ground and appeals allowed.

(3.) The prayer is opposed by Learned SDR who reiterates the finding of the adjudicating authority, highlighting the aspect that collusion with foreign supplier to show lower value is not required [as held by the Tribunal in M/s. Taito Watch Manufacturing Industries case (supra)] to invoke extended period of limitation on the ground of wilful mis -statement or suppression of facts by an importer or his agent or employer.