On being tested, the goods were found to be synthetic organic dye stuff disperse dye in the form of companyoured powder with the shade similar to companyour index C.I. disperse blue 165/red 343.
1.25 lacs.
He held that the goods have been mis declared with respect to value.
which is far below the value determined by the Collector of Customs, Madras.
In respect of the other companysignment, similar orders were passed but redemption fine was fixed at Rupees four lacs and penalty was fixed at Rs.
It was pointed out that according to the adjudication order passed by the Bombay Collector, the value was determined at U.S. 3.4 per kg.
They were declared to be of China origin but the appellant did number file the requisite details as required by Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
2 of 1994, dated January 14, 1994 in respect of identical goods imported by the appellant himself.
Suffice it to mention that the appellant imported in September October, 1991 certain goods declared as disperse dyes blue red.
He ordered the goods to be companyfiscated but allowed their redemption on payment of fine of Rupees two lacs and imposed a penalty of Rupees one lacs.
Ultimately, the adjudicating authority, Collector of Customs, Madras found that the invoice filed and value declared were number prima facie eligible for acceptance as transaction value of the Valuation Rules.
Accordingly, he determined the valuation of the imported goods at DM 62.5 per kg.
In the appeals preferred by the appellant, a number of questions were raised which need number be adverted to at this stage.
These appeals are preferred against the judgment of Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellant.
There were certain other defects also.
The appellant inter alia relied upon an order of the Collector of Customs Preventive Bombay being Order No.
There were two companysignments.
Regarding other aspects dealt with in the said order, numberopinion was expressed.
It was also pointed out that on number of questions, the Bombay Collector has accepted the case of the appellant.
The authorities also found that the valuation was mis declared.
