Bharat Industrial Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/944114
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnJun-11-2012
Case NumberAppeal No.C/332 of 2004
Judge THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY TECHNICAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AppellantBharat Industrial Corporation
RespondentCommissioner of Customs, Chennai
Advocates:For the Appellant: R. Alwar, Advocate. For the Respondent: V.V. Hariharan, JCDR.
Excerpt:
per  d.n. panda, j.                                           1. appellant’s grievance is that in absence of undervaluation of import made, customs authorities should not have disturbed the valuation declared by the appellant in the bill of entry.  the goods imported was patcholi oil in terms of  bill of entry no.296204 dt. 11.10.2000. appellant declared the import value as us$ 5.8 per kg. but the unit price was enhanced to us$ 19.25 per kg by the impugned order resulting in unreasonable duty difference of rs.12,67,211/-.  it was also the grievance of the appellant that levy of penalty was unwarranted and confiscation of goods was also uncalled for.  however, option for redemption was allowed. appellant’s plea for retesting of goods was not allowed by the first appellate authority. so also cross examination of scientist was denied.  the adjudication order was although modified by the appellate authority and the value of us$ 14.44 was adopted by him, that is still in higher side. therefore, the first appellate authority’s order needs interference. 2. ld. dr on behalf of the revenue submits that ld. first appellate authority correctly decided the issue giving quantity adjustment by which he reduced the value reasonably and also reduced the fine as well as penalty. 3. heard both sides and perused the records. 4. learned first appellate authority considered the contemporaneous evidence and also looking to the source of the goods which was from singapore, he found that higher value was declared by other importers for similar goods. examining from various angles, he reasonably considered the case of the appellants granting adjustment of 25% on account of quantity level difference. the samples drawn and sent for testing by chemical testing and analytical laboratory under the department of industries and commerce, guindy, chennai revealed that the goods imported by the appellants were similar to the comparable import made by other importers. cross examination called for by the appellant was denied when chemical analysis of samples of appellant and compared case was tested by same laboratory and there was no subjective bias found from the extent and manner of testing done by the laboratory. there was also admission by the managing director of the appellant stating that patcholi  oil imported by appellant was the pure grade and enhancement of the value may be made.  at the stage of first appeal hearing, appellant’s plea that the goods were standards patcholi oil but not pure grade could not get support without any evidence led. the appellate authority therefore considered level of quantity ordered and reduced enhanced the assessed value of us$ 19.25 to us$ 14.44 per kg which does not appear to be unreasonable in the fitness of the circumstances of the case. he also reduced redemption fine to rs. 2 lakhs and penalty to rs.25,000/-.4. in the course of hearing, no evidence was led before us to disturb the appellate authoritys findings when the goods imported by the appellant was established to be pure grade patcholi oil. once the test report establishes that the goods of the appellant match with the compared goods imported earlier and possess same attributes as is found by the same analytical laboratory, there is no necessity to interfere to the first appellate authority's order. accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Judgment:

Per  D.N. Panda, J.                                          

1. Appellant’s grievance is that in absence of undervaluation of import made, Customs authorities should not have disturbed the valuation declared by the appellant in the Bill of Entry.  The goods imported was Patcholi oil in terms of  Bill of Entry No.296204 dt. 11.10.2000. Appellant declared the import value as US$ 5.8 per kg. But the unit price was enhanced to

US$ 19.25 per kg by the impugned order resulting in unreasonable duty difference of Rs.12,67,211/-.  It was also the grievance of the appellant that levy of penalty was unwarranted and confiscation of goods was also uncalled for.  However, option for redemption was allowed. Appellant’s plea for retesting of goods was not allowed by the first appellate authority. So also cross examination of scientist was denied.  The adjudication order was although modified by the appellate authority and the value of US$ 14.44 was adopted by him, that is still in higher side. Therefore, the first appellate authority’s order needs interference.

2. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that ld. first appellate authority correctly decided the issue giving quantity adjustment by which he reduced the value reasonably and also reduced the fine as well as penalty.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. Learned first appellate authority considered the contemporaneous evidence and also looking to the source of the goods which was from Singapore, he found that higher value was declared by other importers for similar goods. Examining from various angles, he reasonably considered the case of the appellants granting adjustment of 25% on account of quantity level difference. The Samples drawn and sent for testing by Chemical Testing and Analytical Laboratory under the Department of Industries and Commerce, Guindy, Chennai revealed that the goods imported by the appellants were similar to the comparable import made by other importers. Cross examination called for by the appellant was denied when chemical analysis of samples of appellant and compared case was tested by same laboratory and there was no subjective bias found from the extent and manner of testing done by the laboratory. There was also admission by the Managing Director of the appellant stating that Patcholi  oil imported by appellant was the pure grade and enhancement of the value may be made.  At the stage of first appeal hearing, Appellant’s plea that the goods were standards Patcholi Oil but not pure grade could not get support without any evidence led. The appellate authority therefore considered level of quantity ordered and reduced enhanced the assessed value of US$ 19.25 to US$ 14.44 per kg which does not appear to be unreasonable in the fitness of the circumstances of the case. He also reduced redemption fine to Rs. 2 lakhs and penalty to Rs.25,000/-.4. In the course of hearing, no evidence was led before us to disturb the appellate authoritys findings when the goods imported by the appellant was established to be pure grade Patcholi oil. Once the test report establishes that the goods of the appellant match with the compared goods imported earlier and possess same attributes as is found by the same analytical laboratory, there is no necessity to interfere to the first appellate authority's order. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.