JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL, J.— All these appeals under Section 130(e) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are directed against the common order made by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated October 31, 1988 in C.A Nos. 808 to 810/87-A

2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Sharp Business Machines (Pvt) Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the company) is a small scale manufacturing unit duly registered as such since 1984. The company had started the phased manufacture of plain paper copiers and obtained a licence in this regard dated November 25, 1986 for Rs 4,94,500 from the licensing authority. The company imported components and consumables in SKD/CKD for plain paper copiers. Three consignments were imported from M/s Paralax Industrial Corp., Hong Kong under airways bill numbers 098, 4960, 3120; 098, 4960, 3116; and 098, 4960, 3105 all dated January 21, 1987. The goods were received at the air cargo complex, Bangalore. The company sought the clearance of the imported goods under bills of Entry Nos. 2044, 2045 and 2046 all dated February 3,1987. Similarly, the goods were also imported from M/s Alpha Papyrus Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Singapore under airway Bill No. 098, 4925, 4914 dated February 19, 1987. The clearance for this consignment was sought under bill of Entry No. 4993 dated March 11, 1987. The company had declared the value of each of the consignments at Rs 32,182, Rs 43,359, Rs 5412 and Rs 18,659 respectively in respect of the abovementioned bills of Entry Nos. 2044, 2045, 2046 and 4993. The total value declared was Rs 99,612 under all the four bills.

3. Proceedings were held before the Appraiser of Customs air cargo complex Bangalore for verification of the goods and their valuation etc. and the statements of the companys Managing Director Shri Sadanand were also recorded on February 11, 1987, March 10, 1987 and March 18, 1987 under Section 108 of the Act. The Collector of Customs issued a notice to the company under Section 124 of the Act on March 4, 1987 relating to the first consignment. In the said notice it was stated that four items were not covered by the licence and the same were liable for confiscation. However, on March 30, 1987 the Collector issued another notice in supersession of the earlier notice dated March 4, 1987. Notice was also issued on the same date in respect of bill of entry dated March 11, 1987. By the said notices the Collector proposed to enhance the value of the goods imported and further proposed to confiscate the entire goods imported and also to levy a fine and other penalties. The company was accused of misdescription of the goods, misdeclaration of value, suppression of the relationship with the suppliers, suppression of the place of origin of goods etc.

4. The Collector by his order dated April 13, 1987 decided all the points against the company. The Collector held that the quotations given by M/s Shun Hing Technology Ltd. along with the application for approval of their PMP during July 1986 should be taken as the correct value of the goods imported, and the plea of the company that it had received a special discount in view of the bulk purchases and promise of future purchases was not accepted. The Collector in these circumstances determined the price of the goods at Rs 7,15,485 for the purposes of Section 14(1) of the Act. The Collector thus held that there was a misdeclaration of the value to the tune of Rs 6,15,873 and the duty payable thereon would be Rs 10,96,228.20. The Collector further held that the entire goods imported were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. The Collector also held that the goods imported were fully finished copiers in SKD/CKD form and as such there was a misdeclaration that the imported goods were only parts of the copiers. The Collector also held that description of most of the items in the invoices had been deliberately manipulated to suit the description in the licence. T