SRIDHARAN DIAMOND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs in a remanded proceedings.

(2.) The appellants had filed a Bill of Entry dated 6 -2 -99 for clearance of a consignment which was declared to contain 200 Kgs. of "Synthetic Ruby First Crackle" and 347 Kgs. of "Synthetic Ruby Crackle". The goods were imported from Thailand. The declared unit prices based on the relevant invoice issued by the Thai supplier were US 12 and US 8 per Kg. for the two varieties respectively. The department, relying on an invoice dated 28 -12 -98 pertaining to an apparently similar consignment imported from China by one M/s. Sikkim Jewels Ltd., proposed to enhance the value of the appellants' goods to US 70 per Kg. Alleging misdeclaration of the goods, the department also proposed to confiscate the goods and to impose penalty on the appellants. The appellants denied the allegations and contested the proposals. They contended that it was against the principles of valuation to compare the goods with any other goods which was not of the same country of origin or of the same quantity and quality. According to them, the goods imported by them from Thailand were not comparable to those imported from China by M/s. Sikkim Jewels Ltd. Rejecting these contentions, the Commissioner of Customs held, on the basis of visual examination of the goods imported by the appellants and M/s. Sikkim Jewels Ltd., that the goods were comparable. On this basis, he enhanced the value of the appellants' goods. Ld. Commissioner also found misdeclaration against the party and confiscated the goods with option for redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 3.20 lakhs. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 65,000/ - on the party. This decision dated 8 -4 -99 of the Commissioner was taken in appeal to this Tribunal, which was disposed of by Final Order No. 1954/2001, dated 23 -11 -2001 [2002 (149) E.L.T. 439 (T)]; which was an order of remand. Pursuant to the remand order, the Commissioner passed a fresh order, which is not different from the earlier order dated 8 -4 -99 and is presently under challenge.

(3.) Heard both sides. Ld. Consultant submitted that the impugned order was in breach of the specific terms of the Tribunal's remand order. The Commissioner sustained the proposed enhancement of valuation of the goods, again, on the basis of the invoice -price of the goods imported by M/s. Sikkim Jewels Ltd., disregarding the finding (in the remand order) that the goods imported by the appellants and those imported by M/s. Sikkim Jewels Ltd. were not of comparable nature. Ld. Consultant, further, pointed out that the remand order had held to the effect that the burden was on the department to show that the imported goods in question were from the same country of origin and of the same quantity and quality as those of the goods with which they were to be compared for the purpose of valuation; and that the Commissioner proceeded to compare the appellants' goods with the goods of M/s. Sikkim Jewels Ltd., regardless of the fact that the two goods were of different countries of origin, quantities and qualities. The DR reiterated the findings as recorded in the impugned order.