INDIAN LEATHER CORPN. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two appeals arise out of common order passed by the Commissioner (Customs), New Delhi enhancing the value of the goods imported by the appellants and imposing penalty.

(2.) SHRI A.S. Sunder Rajan, learned Advocate, submitted that they had imported drill bits from Kyrghystan. The purchase price of the various sizes of the drill bits was US 0.14 per piece. He further submitted that these drill bits are not of international standard and have not been imported into India earlier and were not available in Indian market at all. The department conducted some market enquiry and on the basis of that enquiry the CIF value of the imported goods were enhanced under Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules. He further submitted that the appellants, in their reply dated 27.9.1994, had requested for the cross - examination of witnesses which was not allowed by the Commissioner. He also mentioned that the persons from whom the enquiry was conducted are only the merchants and not the importers of the goods. It has not been shown by the department whether they have ever handled the goods imported from Kyrghystan. He submitted the transaction value as declared by the appellants should have been accepted by the department as he had produced the manufacturer's invoice which has not been challenged by the department.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments, Shri K. Shiv Kumar, learned JDR, submitted that as the goods were imported under barter system and out of the sale proceeds of these goods the leather garment etc. were to be exported to the exporter in foreign country, there was no sale in actual sense and as such the department was justified in determining the value under Rule 8 of the Customs Act (sic). Regarding market enquiry, he submitted that the market enquiry was conducted from the persons who were dealing in the similar type of goods manufactured in India.