The Customs authorities are required to consider all the evidence placed on record by the importer regarding the value of the imported goods and determine the correct price of the imported goods under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962.

B. N. Kirpal, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THE appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal had obtained a licence for the import of the odolite. On 27th May, 1961 indents were placed on the foreign exporter, M/s Kovo through their agents in India, M/s Manohar Lal and Company. The indents were for 250 pieces of the odolites. The consignments were received in two lots. The first lot of 125 pieces was received and cleared. In May, 1962 the second lot of 125 pieces was received but was not cleared. The clearance was refused because according to the Customs Authorities the consignment had been undervalued.

( 2 ). It appears that the Customs Authorities carried out search in the premises of M/s Manohar Lal and Company on 5th May, 1962. In respect of the first consignment of 125 pieces which had been cleared proceedings were initiated under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Act ). Proceedings were also initiated with regard to the second consignment. On 19th June, 1964 two orders were passed being No. 40 and Order No. 41 in respect of the first and the second consignments respectively. By the said orders) the said consignments were ordered to be confiscated and in lieu thereof opportunity was given to get the goods released on payment of fine. In the appeals, which were filed, the same were partly accepted and by order dated 28th March, 1967 the fine was reduced to Rs. l,70,000. 00. Not being satisfied with the appellate order, the appellant filed revision petition to the Central Government. Number of contentions were raised both on merits as well as on law. The contentions were rejected and on 28th September, 1968 order was passed and the only relief granted was that the fine was reduced to Rs. 80,000. 00.

( 3 ). The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition, being C. W. 640 of 1970 challenging the aforesaid orders passed against the appellant. By judg- ment, dated 29th October, 1974 the aforesaid petition was dismissed. It was held by the learned single Judge that in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution he would not go into the merits of the case in order to find out whether the goods had been undervalued or not. On the question of law, which was raised before the learned single Judge, namely, that in respect of the first consignment which had been cleared the provisions of Section 167 (8) were not attracted, the finding of the learned single Judge was against the appellant.

( 4 ). The appellant has now filed the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Mr. Madan Bhatia learned counsel for the appellant, has raised two submissions before us. His first contention is that the material document on the basis of which the order was placed by his client was dated 28th January) 1960, which was a quotation from M/s Kovo, and the said document had been ignored by the authorities. It was also contended in this connection that the Customs authorities have ignored Section 30 of the Act and have wrongly refused to consider the evidence submitted with regard to the value of the goods. The second contention of Mr. Bhatia is that on a correct reading of the Act as well as the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947) the provisions of Section 167 (8) were not applicable and reliance in this behalf is placed by him on the Supreme Court decision in Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. M/s. Best and Go. A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 170.

( 5 ). In our opinion, it is not necessary to decide the second question which has been raised) because the first submission of Mr. Bhatia is well founded. The question which was involved in this case before the Customs authorities was as to whether the goods which had been imported had been undervalued or not. Section 30 of the Act defines "real value" of the goods. The said section reads as follows :

" real value defined.-For the purposes of this Act the real value shall be deemed to be : (a) the wholesale cash price, less trade discount, for which goods of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document