DESH DEEP Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Jaipur, confiscating a parcel of rough emeralds under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 while permitting it to be redeemed on fine of Rs. 60,000/ - and also imposing a penalty on the appellant of Rs. 20,000/ - under Section 112(a) of the Act.

(2.) SHRI A.C. Jain, Advocate for the appellant says that the appellant is an importer of precious stones. The appellant had placed the order on a supplier in London for supply of rough emeralds and they filed the bill of entry showing the value of the goods in accordance with the invoice. Subsequently a corrected invoice was received which was also filed with the Customs. By this time, however the customs had examined the goods and appraised the value at US 26112.15 against the invoiced value of US 59987.25. The appellants had waived conditions of a show cause notice. However, at the time of hearing Shri J.K. Shekhri, a Director of the supplier had himself confirmed that by mistake the incorrect invoice has been initially sent. Shri Jain further argues that Additional Collector has not specifically indicated what the value is with regard to which he finds misdeclaration. He has not dealt with the point raised by Shri Shekhri. He points out that there is a difference between the lot number as indicated in the first invoice and the lot number as found on the goods, as is apparent from the Additional Collectors' order. He says that there is not sufficient material to sustain the order of confiscation and penalty, and relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in Hind Enamel Company v. Collector of Customs, 1992 (67) E.L.T. 107 and Allen Bredley v. CCE, 1992 (68) E.L.T. 268. He says in any event the goods were in customs custody and there would be no loss of foreign exchange. The advocate conclude saying that redemption fine and penalty are, in any event, in excess.

(3.) SHRI Sanjeev Sachdeva, JDR says that the second invoice is dated 30 -4 -1991. The bill of entry was filed only on 8th May, 1991 and the goods were examined on 9th May, 1991. Therefore if the invoice has actually been signed and sent on 30th April, 1991 or a (Jay or two later, it would have reached the appellant well in time for him to produce it before the Customs and to have amended the value in the bill of entry before the goods were examined. The fact that it was not done shows the mala fide intention of the appellant. He says that there is only a minor discrepancy in the lot number in the invoice and that which was found on the lot. The second invoice does not have any lot number at all and if the lot number is the criterion, the second invoice cannot be held to cover the goods. He says that the Additional Collector has dealt with the arguments of the appellant, supported by the claim of Shri Shekri that the incorrect invoice has been sent by error, has been considerably dealt in his order.