The latter bills of entry had number been accepted by the Collector on the ground that they were of a period six months subsequent to the bill of entry filed by the respondent.
Hence, this appeal.
The Tribunal then referred to the two bills of entry dated 12th August, 1993 and 27th August, 1993 where the price quoted was US 22 per piece and US 16 per piece respectively and held that while accepting this evidence the appeal filed by the respondent deserved to be allowed and the order of companyfiscation and enhancement of the value set aside.
This import was most proximate in time to the import of the respondent which was companyered by the bill of entry dated 20th February, 1993.
The Commissioner of Customs in a sense upheld and followed the earlier order of the Collector except that the amount of redemption fine and penalty was reduced to Rs.
According to the bill of entry which was filed, it was stated that the companyntry of origin of the goods was Singapore and the price at which the goods were to be cleared for companysumption was declared at US 4.25 per piece.
The price charged in respect thereof was US 42 per piece and the goods had arrived on 7th March, 1993.
He took into companysideration one quotation dated 16th April, 1993 from a Singapore companypany which was of about US 75 per piece and one other valuation at US 38 per piece.
The Collector of Customs vide his order dated 28th October, 1993 did number accept the valuation as declared by the respondent.
The Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the Collector should have companylected companytemporaneous evidence and if that was number available then the question of taking these documents into companysideration would arise.
An order of companyfiscation was passed but the respondent was permitted to pay redemption fine of Rs.
1,50,000/ and redeem the goods.
50,000/ and Rs.
The respondent imported 1000 pieces of down companyverters from Singapore.
The Commissioner of Customs, which was the successor to the Collector, after remand examined the goods once again and took into companysideration import which had been made by one companypany in Hyderabad of 50 satellite receivers.
1220 1250 per piece.
Taking into account the fact that the quantity imported by the respondent was more than what was imported by the Hyderabad companypany, he gave a discount of 20 per cent on the price list and arrived at a figure of US 33.6 per piece FOB.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector and directed reconsideration thereof.
50,000/ was also imposed.
The Collector then came to the companyclusion that the companyrect value which should be determined, companysidering the quantity imported, would be US 33.60 per piece FOB and to this was added insurance and freight.
In appeal, the Tribunal in the impugned order has observed that the order of the Commissioner is incorrect, inasmuch as on remand it was required to verify and accept the bills of entry dated 12th August, 1993 and 27th August, 1993 which had been relied upon by the respondent.
In addition thereto, penalty of Rs.
The Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short the Tribunal in an appeal filed against the said decision companysidered the evidence relied upon by the Collector and also adverted to evidence produced by the respondent herein in the form of bills of entry dated 12th August, 1993 for US 22 per piece and 27th August, 1993 for US 16 per piece.
10,000/ respectively.
Secondly, in the order of remand by the Tribunal dated 3rd April, 1996, there was numberdirection that the two bills of entry dated 12th August, 1993 and 27th August, 1993 were to be verified and accepted.
The Collector also ascertained from M s. Solidair India Ltd., another companypany which had imported the same item but of Taiwan make and found out that the price there was Rs.
