UNIK TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALONG with this appeal, the appellants have submitted Miscellaneous application No. 356/99, wherein they have prayed for permission to submit additional evidence.

(2.) HEARD Sri S. Murugappan, learned Advocate, who submits that this appeal is against Order -in -Original No. 34/99 CAU dated 15.6.99 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, wherein dry ginger imported under two Bills of Entry were confiscated and allowed on redemption fine after holding that there was an under declaration of value and the enhanced price fixed was US 1200 per MT. The said valuation was done under Customs Valuation Rules. The learned Advocate submits that when the matter was being considered by the learned original authority, the appellants were not in a possession of certain evidence in the form of copies of Bill of Entry covering imports of similar goods at Mumbai. Therefore, this Miscellaneous application for permission to submit these as evidence as contemporaneous imports of same goods at Mumbai.

(3.) HEARD learned DR Sri S. Sankaravadivelu.