2000(11)LCX0137

IN THE CEGAT, EASTERN BENCH, KOLKATA

Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Dr. S.N. Busi, Member (T)

HITACHI-KK MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Versus

COMMR. OF CUS., CALCUTTA

Order No. A-1912/CAL/2000, dated 22-11-2000 in Appeal No. C/V-289/98

Advocated By :   Shri Vijay Prahladka, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.N. Busi, Member (T)]. - In this appeal, the Appellants challenge the order, dated 28-7-1998 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta, in which the Order-in-Original, dated 8-7-1997 of Assistant Commissioner of Customs was upheld which ordered confiscation of the impugned goods with redemption fine of Rs. 12,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The said Order-in-Original has classified the impugned goods under Customs tariff sub-heading 4911.10 and the benefit of Notification 11/97-Cus., was denied. In the said order, the value declared was enhanced from Rs. 6,553/- to Rs. 25,690/-.

2. Shri V. Prahladka, ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants, submits that the enhancement of the value was done without giving a proper opportunity to the Appellants inasmuch as the documents relied upon and the basis on which the value was proposed to be increased were not made available to the Appellants. Ld. Advocate disputes the classification and states that specific licence was not required for the said goods.

3. Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the reasoning contained in the order impugned. He submits that as against the declaration of the goods by the Appellants as LP mini catalog, on examination the Customs found them to be folded leaflet titled “143 ways to Export your sound” and as such the Customs held the same to be Trade advertising material classifiable under Heading 4911.10 corresponding to ITC (HS) Exim Code No. 491110.02 which required a specific licence for importation of the said goods. He further submits that since the goods could not be treated as “tags” - the authorities below had rightly denied the benefit of Notification No. 11/97, dated 1-3-1997. As regards valuation, the Id. JDR pleads that enhancement of value from Rs. 6553/- to Rs. 25,690/- was based on the fact that a costlier glazed paper was used and as such the authorities below have rightly rejected the value declared by the Appellants.

4. We have heard both sides. We observe that the adjudicating authority has increased the value under Rule 7A of the Valuation Rules as there was no contemporaneous import of the identical or similar goods. Having regard to the fact that a costlier glazed paper was used in the manufacture of the said advertising material, the lower authorities are quite justified in enhancing the value on that basis. The ld. Advocate’s contention that proper opportunity was not given to the Appellants, is not correct inasmuch as personal hearing was granted to the Appellants. As regards classification, on a careful perusal of the CTA, we are of the view that the impugned goods are correctly classified under sub-heading 4911.10 and as such attract the corresponding ITC (HS) Exim Code No. 491110.02. In view thereof, the impugned goods can be imported only against a specific licence. As the Appellants failed to produce any such licence to the Customs authorities, the impugned goods were rightly confiscated. However, having regard to the over-all facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-. As regards penalty, we find it to be already on a lower side and as such it does not call for any interference.

5. But for the reduction in redemption fine, as indicated above, the appeal is otherwise rejected.

Equivalent 2001 (134) ELT 0156 (Tri. - Kolkata)