G.R. BATRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS stay application seeks exemption from pre -deposit of duty and penalty imposed under Order -in -Original No. 25/03 -Cus., dated 30 -7 -2003 of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Thiruvananthapuram. The total duty demand is over Rs. 38 lakhs. There is an equal amount of penalty.

(2.) THE stay application was originally posted for hearing on 20 -2 -2004. On that day the case was adjourned at the request of the appellant. Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned four times. When the matter came up on 6 -5 -2004 the appellant, Shri G.R. Batra appeared in person and requested for final adjournment to 12 -5 -2004 so that he could arrange for legal representation. On 12 -5 -2004 Shri Navnit Pawar, Advocate appeared and stated that his senior Advocate Shri Piyush Kumar was seeking to withdraw from the case. Shri G.R. Batra was not present also. We are not inclined to adjourn the case further. The appellant has been delaying the decision in the stay application by repeated request for adjournment. Therefore, we proceeded to hear the learned SDR and are passing the following order on the stay application.

(3.) THE aforesaid duty demand has arisen in regard to the import of two consignments - motor parts/condenser through Air Cargo Complex, Thiruvananthapuram vide Bill of Entry No. 3446, dated 21 -7 -1997 and 3515, dated 25 -7 -1997 by the appellant. The appellant declared the value of Singapore Dollar 3 FOB per piece for the condenser. The goods were originally assessed provisionally at the declared value and the assessments were finalised by demanding differential duty of Rs. 44,3917 - in respect of Bill of Entry No. 3515, dated 25 -7 -97 and Rs. 18,279/ - for Bill of Entry No. 3446, dated 21 -7 -97. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 15 -5 -2002 was issued when it came to light that appellant imported same goods at Delhi vide Bill of Entry No. 605118, dated 9 -12 -97 at a declared value of US 45.6. FOB, which several multiples of the value declared at Thiruvananthapuram. During investigation the appellant had also stated that the goods imported at both the places were identical. However, during the adjudication proceedings the appellant sought to distinguish the goods by stating that the goods imported at Delhi were of Japanese origin while the goods imported at Thiruvananthapuram were of Chinese origin. The Commissioner did not accept this explanation as it was the evidence that both imports were of Sanden Corporation Ltd., Japan and the goods were the same. The present appeal is also basically on the same ground.