UNIVERSAL SYNTHETICS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Madras determining the assessable value of Disperse Dyes Blue imported by the appellants, confirming the demand for duty short -levied, confiscating the goods under Clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 with redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and imposing penalty of Rs. 75,000/ - on the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant imported 1,000 kgs. of unbranded Disperse Dyes Blue of Indonesian origin from a supplier in Singapore and declared the value at US 3.25 per kg. CAP Madras. When the Bill of entry was filed on 14 -9 -1992, the Customs House suggested an enhanced value at the rate of US 5 per kg. which was paid and goods cleared. It appears on 2 -11 -1992, officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted the goods at the godown of the transporter and scrutinised and seized the relevant records. Samples were drawn to ascertain the colour, index and value of the goods. The samples were sent to M/s. White House Process (P) Ltd., Madras who opined that the samples consisted of Disperse Dye Powder of blue colour, index number Disperse Blue 87 and the samples were similar to Palanil Brilliant Blue BGF of strength of 200 % manufactured by M/s. BASF, Germany. Enquiries showed that the CIF sea price of Palanil Brilliant Blue VGF -N 200% was in the regin of DM 73.00 per kg. since 1991 for similar orders and this was confirmed by the manufacturer by letter dated 12 -11 -1992. Statements of various persons concerned were recorded. Show cause notice was issued in the matter of valuation and ultimately, the Collector held that the assembled value was DM 73 per kg. CIF Madras. It was on this basis that differential duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were ordered.

(3.) IT is true that particulars such as Index number and strength were not declared by the appellants. These particulars were found out after testing the samples. The invoice showed the goods to be of Indonesian origin and the same was certified by the Singapore Chamber of Commerce. The Collector rejected the certificate on the ground that a certificate from Indonesia had not been produced and that the manufacturers catalogue, price list or correspondence had not been produced. The reasoning appears to be faulty. The supply was made not from Indonesia but from Singapore. The appellant obtained sample from the supplier, got it tested and then placed the order with the Singapore supplier. The invoice recited that the goods were of Indonesian origin and this was certified by the Chamber of Commerce. The goods were not branded. They were unbranded goods. The department did not call upon the appellant to produce certificate from Indonesia. This was a case investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Investigating team could certainly have investigated into the origin of the goods. That was not done. In the circumstances, the Collector could not have rejected the contention of the appellant that the goods were of Indonesian origin.