Judgment:
1. This appeal is directed against Order No. S/10-69/91 V(B), dated 5-2-91 of the Additional Collector of Customs, Mumbai. Under the impugned order a consignment imported by the appellant and declared to be containing camera parts was confiscated with option to the appellant fo redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 8 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs was also imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In addition increase of the assessable value of the goods under import was ordered.
2. The above mentioned actions were taken on the finding that the goods under import were actually not camera parts as declared in the import documents but were 2950 cameras imported in SKD condition. The order also took note of the fact that the appellant had carried out a similar import which had been adjudicated under Order No. S/10-260/90 V(B), dated 7-12-90. The impugned order concluded that cameras being consumers goods, were not eligible for import without a specific licence and Appendix-3 Part 'A' of the Import Policy for the relevant period allowed only the import of components of camera. The order, therefore, held that the imported goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The order also held that the declared value of the goods was not the correct value of cameras and held that the cameras in SKD condition were similar to model Holga MF-35 priced at US $ 13.30 per piece. The order held that mis-declaration of the value of the goods rendered the consignment liable to confiscate under Section 111(m) of the same Act.
3. The appellants have challenged the impugned order contending that the goods under import were actually components of cameras and there was no misdeclaration of description or value. In support of this contention it has been submitted that the components under import did not include the wires required for connecting the various parts. It is their case that in the absence of such wires the imported consignment could not be called cameras in SKD condition. In support of this contention they have also produced a certificate dated 21-12-2001 from their foreign supplier. This certificate states that wires are required for the assembling of the camera and that a technical person only can undertake the assembly of the camera. With regard to the valuation of the goods, the appellants have submitted that even assuming that the imported goods were cameras in SKD condition, their value cannot be taken as 13.30 $ inasmuch as similar cameras have been stated to be priced between US $ 7.5 to 10 by their supplier.
4. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel for the appellant emphasized that the importer was a small scale manufacturing unit having small scale registration and the imports actually should be treated only as import of camera parts. He also submitted that even if the appellant's declaration as camera parts were rejected, the valuation should have been carried out according to prices indicated by them. He also pointed out that no reason has been furnished in the impugned order for rejecting the prices indicated by the appellant importer. Learned Counsel further submitted that the appellant has seen dealt with very unjustly in the present case inasmuch, even though the date of the impugned order is given as 5-2-91, no order was issued for more than a year. Ultimately, after much complaining by the appellant the order was issued on 1-6-92 only. Appellant's Counsel pointed out that in the mean time the order became incapable of being acted upon inasmuch as the goods in question had been disposed of in auction in October, 91 at a price of Rs. 6,55,500 -. The learned Counsel submitted that the fine and penalty imposed on the appellant were extremely high and this is clear from the sale price of the goods itself.
5. As against the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the appellant, the learned SDR has pointed out that the examination of the goods clearly showed that the import was of entire camera in SKD condition including screws for fitting the various parts. He pointed out that cameras, being consumer items, were not allowed for import under Import Export Policy for the relevant period. He also pointed out that the value of the goods was too low compared to the import price of similar camera namely Holga MF-35. He, therefore, submitted that the increase in value and confiscation of the goods was fully justified, particularly, since it was a repeat import by the appellant as pointed out in the impugned order. The learned SDR also pointed out that the appellant himself had admitted to the offence during adjudication proceedings and had sought permission for re-export of the goods.
6. With regard to the finding that the goods under import are actually camera in SKD condition, the observation in the impugned order is as under :- "I have gone through the facts of the case. I have also gone through the submissions made by the importer in writing as well as those made at the time of personal hearing. It is very much clear from the examination report that complete camera has been imported in SKD condition. Only few screws have to be fitted to make the camera fully operative. I have myself seen the sample and I am satisfied that it is a complete camera which can be used by fitting the front cover, top cover and knobs with the help of one or two screws by any layman. There is therefore no doubt that the goods imported are complete camera in SKD condition and are covered under Entry No. 173 of Appdx. 2 Part B of Import Export Policy, 1990-93. The goods import under the aforesaid heading require a specific licence which the party has failed to produce for clearance. The party has also admitted their lapse on this account." In view of the clear findings on the facts as recorded above, we are in agreement with the revenue that the import in question was of cameras in SKD condition and not components of cameras as declared in the import documents. We do not find much force in the appellants' submission that wires were also required for assembling the cameras or that technical skill is required for assembling.
7. With regard to the valuation of the goods, it is evident that parts and assembled goods would be of different value. Therefore, the authorities could not be faulted for valuing the goods based on the comparable goods as has been done in the present case. The appellant's contention that the valua tion as suggested by them should have been accepted does not have any le gal basis. Their submission was that their supplier in Hong Kong had indi cated a price range of 7.5 to 10 US $ per camera. This claim was not sup ported by any actual import of comparable goods and could not have there fore been accepted. In these facts and circumstances, the impugned order merits to be confirmed. All the same, we are in agreement with the appellant that the long delay between the passing of the order and its issue made it impossible for the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of fine and led to much injustice. The appellant is also right in his submission that fine and penalty imposed were very high in the light of the disposal of the imported consignment at Rs. 6,55,500/-. Accordingly, while upholding the order on merits, we are reducing the fine and penalty to Rs. 1 lakh each. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.