LAWS(CE)-1999-3-81

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. BALAJI EXIMS

Decided On March 31, 1999
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Appellant
V/S
Balaji Exims Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference application filed by Revenue against Final Order Nos. 958 to 960/98, dated 22 -9 -1998. The revenue has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the reference application, the delay is only 15 days.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides we are satisfied that the Commissioner was prevented from sufficient cause from filing the reference application within the stipulated time limit. The delay is within the stipulated time limit and hence the same is condoned and the reference application is taken up for hearing.

(3.) THE final order of the Tribunal in this matter raised the question of valuation of imported goods and the Tribunal after a detailed consideration of the matter held that the department cannot load the value in respect of imported goods as the department had proceeded in accepting the quotation for valuation purposes and had wrongly taken the value as Singapore 28692 which is for the entire system and the same has not been imported. The Tribunal also concluded that if the quotation relied by the department was from Daxco which reflected price US 4270. The Tribunal held that on giving 40% discount on this value, the value will be US 1708 and the invoice value shows US 1700 and held that there was not much difference in value and, therefore, upheld the appellants contention and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the appeal there was no question of valuation or import policy. The Tribunal had extracted the findings given in Sai Impex v. C.C.E. reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 616 (Tribunal). The Tribunal had also relied on Final Order No. 05/92, dated 20 -1 -1992 as rendered in the case of Shah and Shantibhai v. C.C., Calcutta. That case pertained to valuation as well as to the aspect pertaining to import policy. The extract of the judgment from para 6 had been taken in the impugned order which had been relied by the Counsel. The extracted portion did not form part of the reasoning of the Tribunal's order.