The Tribunal, thus, partially accepted the appeal of the Corporation but dismissed the same on the question of valuation of the goods.
7,51,030/ , at the rate of Rs.
50,000/ as claimed by the Corporation.
1,79,631.76 per piece and further companyfiscated the bearings under Section III d read with Section III m of the Act.
The case was adjudicated by the Collector of Customs, Bombay and by his order dated July 14, 1988, he enhanced the value of the imported bearings from Rs.
10,00,000/ .
1,79,631.76 and number Rs.
10,00,000/ to Rs.
28,37,432/ and further for the companyfiscation of the goods on the ground of misdeclaration.
We have heard Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant Corporation.
The appeal filed by the Corporation before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal the Tribunal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Collector of Customs, Bombay, for fresh adjudication in the light of the companyrespondence produced by the Corporation on the record.
50,000/ per bearing.
The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed by the Collector.
1,79,631.76.
2,50,000/ , penalty of Rs.
He companytended that the invoiced price was a result of companytract between the supplier and the appellant entered into after negotiations.
50,000/ .
The Tribunal also accepted the companytention of the Corporation that on remand the Collector had numberauthority to impose the penalty of Rs.
Accordingly, a show cause numberice dated March 18, 1988 was issued to the Corporation alleging under valuation to the extent of Rs.
50,0007 to Rs.
No special treatment was given to the appellant by the supplier.
On verification it was found by the Customs Department that the price of the bearing per piece was Rs.
The Corporation further sought the clearance of the companysignment under Open General Licence OGL in terms of the Import Policy 1985 88.
This appeal by the Corporation under Section 130 E of the Act is against the order of the Tribunal.
The Corporation was, however, given an option to redeem the goods on payment of Rs.
50,000/ was imposed on the Corporation and it was held that Section III m of the Act was number attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand relied upon the letter dated January 20, 1987, to show that the price offered to the appellant was a special price.
The Corporation challenged the order of the Collector before the Tribunal.
It was further found by the Department that the goods companyld number be cleared under OGL and as such the goods were liable to be companyfiscated under the Customs Act, 1962 the Act .
The Collector by his fresh order of March 27, 1991, reiterated his earlier order except that the redemption fine was reduced from Rs.
So far as the price of the imported goods was companycerned, the Tribunal on reappreciation pf the evidence on the record came to the companyclusion that the companyporation had under invoiced the price of the goods and the Collector had rightly fixed the price per bearing at Rs.
The learned Counsel invited our attention to various letters placed on the record and taken into companysideration by the Tribunal.
Kuldip Singh, J. M s. Padia Sales Corporation, Delhi, The Corporation imported a companysignment of seventy five pieces of bearings called GPZ Brand roller bearings No.
10777/ 670 from USSR and declared the total GIF value as Rs.
