UNIVERSAL ABRASIVES AND MINERALS Vs. COMMR. OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Commissioner has demanded differential duty of over Rs. 5 lakhs from the appellants in respect of two consignments of concrete paving blocks imported by them in June 2000. This demand is consequential to enhancement of value of the goods on the basis of domestic market price of the goods in the country of exportation (UAE). In respect of this demand, the learned Consultant submits that enhancement of value is against Rule 8(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1983. The learned SDR relies on the finding of the Commissioner in this connection. After perusal of the records and the provisions cited by the learned Counsel, we find that prima facie enhancement of the value done by the Commissioner is against the mandate of Sub -rule (2) of Rule 8 ibid which places an embargo on determination of value of import goods under Rule 8 on the basis of price of the goods in the domestic market of the country of exportation. Apparently, the appellants have a prima facie case against the demand of differential duty.

(2.) LEARNED Commissioner has imposed penalty on the assessee under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, In this connection, it is submitted by the Consultant that the said penalty was not warranted in this case as the show cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 and not under Section 28. The basis of this submission is that any penalty under Section 114A of the Act is relatable only to a demand of duty under Section 28(2) of the Act. Learned SDR, again, is falling back on the finding of the Commissioner in this connection as well. We have found much force in the submission of the Consultant.

(3.) APPELLANTS had imported a 3rd consignment of the goods in July 2000, but the same has been abandoned by them in terms of Section 23 of the Act, a fact noted in the impugned order. In spite of this abandonment of the goods, learned Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs, 1 lakh on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. Learned Consultant has claimed strong prima facie case against this penalty as well, by submitting that imported goods abandoned are not liable to confiscation and hence the importer is not liable to penalty. We are impressed with this argument.