By the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, a fine of Rs.
It was therefore submitted by the department that there is foolproof evidence to suggest undervaluation in the import of cloves by the appellant with intent to evade customs duty.
Aggrieved by the abovesaid order dated 31.12.2003, the Appellant Company preferred an Appeal in the Tribunal on various grounds.
Thereafter, an order was passed on 13.2.2003 by the Commissioner of Customs Adjudication holding that the value for the Page 5 of 16 purpose of assessment of the cloves imported under four Bills of Entry should be US Dollars 5500 PMT and for the balance six Bills of Entry, the value for the assessment of the cloves imported by the Appellants should be US 5600 PMT CIF .
During the companyrse of investigation, the partner of the appellant was also questioned.
In the light of the aforesaid submissions we have perused the documents on record.
The goods were described as cloves Zanzibar Indonesia meaning thereby cloves of Zanzibar Indonesian origin of the bulk quantity of 300 MTs at US Dollars 2600 PMT CIF Mumbai.
It was also stated that while seeking clearance the quantity declared was 23.488 MTs, but on actual examination the companysignment was found to be in excess by 1.05 MTs companyfirming the companyrectness of the quantity mentioned as per invoice dated 7.2.2001 i.e. 24.538 MTs.
Appellants requested for supply of certain documents.
The Tribunal heard the parties and thereafter by an Order dated 8.3.2006 dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant and its partner.
The Tribunal upheld and companyfirmed the reasoning and the companyclusions of the Commissioner for passing the order dated 31.12.2003.
169 of 2004 was preferred by the partner of the appellant Company in the same Tribunal.
In other words whether the price of goods at the time of companyputation should be the deciding factor in arriving at the value of the goods or it is the price agreed upon by the parties.
In that process, he admitted that the original companytract was with M s. Ketan Trading Co., Singapore for supply of 300 MTs and it was signed in November, 2000 and that he was having only a photocopy of the said companytract.
10 lacs was imposed on the appellant firm, and also a penalty of Rs.
5 lacs imposed on Ratanlal under the provision of Section 112 a of the Customs Act imposed by the Commissioner of Customs Adjudication was upheld.
It was alleged that the appellants herein entered into a companytract with M s. Ketan Trading Company, Singapore on 23.11.2000 for import of cloves.
He pointed out that the document dated 23.11.2000 of M s. Ketan Trading Co. is number a companytract and therefore numberreliance companyld and should be placed on the said document to arrive at a finding that in fact the appellant had supplied the aforesaid cloves for Ketan Trading Company at US Dollars 2600 PMT.
Page 2 of 16 Again, for further imports seven more bills of entry were filed by the appellants in terms of the direction of the respondent.
The appellants paid the price at the enhanced price.
624/2K 01 dated 7.2.2001 issued M s. IJIM ASIA in the name of M s. Ketan Trading Co. showing companysignment of 24.538 MTs of cloves at the rate of US Dollars 5600, he stated that one companysignment was imported by him under bill of entry dated 24.2.2001, which was the same companysignment mentioned and shown against invoice dated 7.2.2001.
He also submitted that the findings and companyclusions arrived at by the Commissioner of Customs Adjudication as well as by the Tribunal are findings of fact and the same should number be interfered with by this Court.
He stated that the international market price of cloves in the Page 4 of 16 beginning of 2001 was only US Dollars 2900 to US Dollars 3000 and that in February, March April the price went up to US Dollars 5000 depending upon the quality.
In order to substantiate the claims and the rejection of the said claims, reference was made to the provisions of Sections 14 1 a of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 4 and Rule 5 and Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
The said provisions being relevant, material part thereof are extracted herein below.
A Show Cause Notice was issued by the Department on 27.2.2002 to which reply was also received.
Still aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority as also by the Tribunal.
As regards the invoice bearing No.
The appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 8.3.2006 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi hereinafter the Tribunal whereby and whereunder the adjudication order dated 31.12.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Adjudication , Mumbai was upheld and whereby the Tribunal dismissed both the appeals preferred by the appellants holding that the appellant was fully aware and was made known about the materials placed before the authority and he had full opportunity to deal with the documents Page 1 of 16 submitted by the witness.
Apart from the aforesaid appeal filed by the appellant, another appeal No.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. The present Civil Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962.
The aforesaid request was acceded to by the Department and personal hearing was also given to the appellants.
The appellants also filed their written submission.
