Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bombay Plastic Udyog - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal filed by the revenue was argued by shri k.m. patwari.none was present for the respondents.2. m/s. bombay plastic udyog imported 454.54 kg. of acetal plastic raw material (polyacetal). the value declared was us $ 550 pmt. cif bombay, customs contested the valuation. the assistant collector enhanced the value to us $ 1100 pmt fob bombay. the commissioner reviewed the order and caused an application to be filed before the commissioner (appeals), in the belief that the importer deserved to be penalised and that the goods deserved to be confiscated for misdeclaration. the commissioner (appeals) found no merit in the application and dismissed the appeal before him. against this order of the commissioner (appeals) the present appeal was filed by the commissioner of customs, mumbai in terms of section 129a(2) of the act.3. when matter came up for hearing on 5-5-1999, we observed that the statement of facts related to a totally different case namely that relating to m/ s. rajiv enterprises. the order-in-appeal cited in the statement of facts was also different from that shown in the authorisation letter. however, the grounds of appeal were found to be relating to the facts in the impugned order. these facts were brought to the notice of the dr and he was advised to seek a clarification, and the matter was adjourned. today shri patwari submits that his office was informed by the concerned commissioner that correct statement of facts etc. along with application for rectification thereof had been forwarded to dr's office.4. we find that the ld. commissioner has not understood what was required by him. the appeal memorandum indicates total non-application of mind at the time of its filing. when the serious drawback exists in the manner in which the appeal is filed, there is no question of rectification thereof after 4 years. then also the ld. commissioner has not filed any application for rectification before the tribunal but has sent the prayer to the dr's office. this shows indifference. we hold that this appeal is not maintainable and dismiss the same.

Judgment:
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue was argued by Shri K.M. Patwari.

None was present for the Respondents.

2. M/s. Bombay Plastic Udyog imported 454.54 kg. of Acetal Plastic raw material (Polyacetal). The value declared was US $ 550 PMT. CIF Bombay, Customs contested the valuation. The Assistant Collector enhanced the value to US $ 1100 PMT FOB Bombay. The Commissioner reviewed the order and caused an application to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), in the belief that the importer deserved to be penalised and that the goods deserved to be confiscated for misdeclaration. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no merit in the application and dismissed the appeal before him. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the present appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai in terms of Section 129A(2) of the Act.

3. When matter came up for hearing on 5-5-1999, we observed that the Statement of Facts related to a totally different case namely that relating to M/ s. Rajiv Enterprises. The order-in-appeal cited in the Statement of Facts was also different from that shown in the authorisation letter. However, the grounds of appeal were found to be relating to the facts in the impugned order. These facts were brought to the notice of the DR and he was advised to seek a clarification, and the matter was adjourned. Today Shri Patwari submits that his office was informed by the concerned Commissioner that correct Statement of Facts etc. along with application for rectification thereof had been forwarded to DR's office.

4. We find that the ld. Commissioner has not understood what was required by him. The appeal memorandum indicates total non-application of mind at the time of its filing. When the serious drawback exists in the manner in which the appeal is filed, there is no question of rectification thereof after 4 years. Then also the ld. Commissioner has not filed any application for rectification before the Tribunal but has sent the prayer to the DR's office. This shows indifference. We hold that this appeal is not maintainable and dismiss the same.