Sapna Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the common appellant in these appeals imported various items of dry fruits from afghanistan at a time when the duty was specific and not ad valorem. the custom house suggested enhancement of the value. it is said that at that stage the appellant or his agent was prepared to accept the value. subsequently the jurisdictional officer passed separate orders debiting the value assessed against the value of the licence and finding that the licence was inadequate for the raised values passing orders of confiscation and fixing redemption fine. in three cases, he also imposed penalties. in appeal, collector (appeals) set aside the imposition of penalties in the two cases and reduced the redemption fine to 50% in all cases except in three cases where the redemption fines fixed were rs. 18000/-, rs. 18000/- and rs. 8000/-.hence these appeals.2. since duty was specific, the question of evasion of duty does not arise in these cases. ordinarily the cif value is not adopted for debiting against the value of the licence. of course, in case of satisfactory evidence of flow of additional consideration or such other act of manipulation, the officer may be justified in debiting the cif value against the value of the licence. this situation is absent in the present cases. we, therefore, set aside the orders of the assistant collector debiting the assessed value against the value of the licence and also setting aside the orders of confiscation and fixation of redemption fines.

Judgment:
1. The common appellant in these appeals imported various items of dry fruits from Afghanistan at a time when the duty was specific and not ad valorem. The Custom House suggested enhancement of the value. It is said that at that stage the appellant or his agent was prepared to accept the value. Subsequently the jurisdictional Officer passed separate orders debiting the value assessed against the value of the licence and finding that the licence was inadequate for the raised values passing orders of confiscation and fixing redemption fine. In three cases, he also imposed penalties. In appeal, Collector (Appeals) set aside the imposition of penalties in the two cases and reduced the redemption fine to 50% in all cases except in three cases where the redemption fines fixed were Rs. 18000/-, Rs. 18000/- and Rs. 8000/-.

Hence these appeals.

2. Since duty was specific, the question of evasion of duty does not arise in these cases. Ordinarily the CIF value is not adopted for debiting against the value of the licence. Of course, in case of satisfactory evidence of flow of additional consideration or such other act of manipulation, the officer may be justified in debiting the CIF value against the value of the licence. This situation is absent in the present cases. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector debiting the assessed value against the value of the licence and also setting aside the orders of confiscation and fixation of redemption fines.