2008 PTD 1925
ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL).--- This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.Cus-08/04 dated 6-4-2004 passed by learned Collector of Customs, Sales Tax & Central Excise (Adjudication) Lahore (respondent No.1).
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal the appellant imported and sought clearance of a consignment of rubber V. belts (Job-lot quality) China origin, 62760 Kg, vide Goods Declaration No. 818 dated 10-12-2003 which were directly shipped by Messrs Korea Belt Company Limited. The consignment was directly imported from Korea vide Letter of Credit dated 7-8-03 C&F @ US$ 0.60 per Kg (i.e. total C&F US$ 37,500). The Customs Appraisement Department, at the original stage examined the consignment under first appraisement system and its quality was ascertained to be of job lot quality instead as claimed by the appellant/importer, which was not importable under Import Policy Order in vogue at the relevant time. The assessable value of the consignment as per computerized data of Appraisement Collectorate Karachi, on the basis or prime quality value of Chinese Origin V-Belts @ C&F US$ 1,550,00 per Matric Ton after allowing depreciation @ 30% for Job Lot Quality was ascertained to be @ C&F US$ 1,193.00 Per Metric Ton (i.e. total assessable value Rs.33,84,790,00) involving total Customs Duty & Taxes Rs.1772787. Subsequently, the Appraisement Department on the basis of Korean origin goods for the purposes of adjudication reviewed its assessable and ascertained value to be Rs.45,67,915,00 vis-a-vis customs duty and taxes Rs.23,92,446.00 were also determined. However, the appellant/importer contended that the goods are of Chinese origin instead as ascertained by the customs department as of Korean origin for assessment purposes. On the respondent request, the matter was adjudicated summarily. In addition to that, the redemption fine @ 15% was imposed on the goods and a personal penalty on the basis of relevant rules and law of Rs.500,000.00 was also imposed on the importer respondent.
3. Aggrieved of the same, this appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the goods were of China origin which was confirmed from the invoice packing list, bill of lading, L.C. and the certificate of origin, therefore, undoubtedly the goods were of China origin but shipped from Korea by the supplier who is based in Korea. It is maintained that there is no evidence on record to suggest that these goods were of Korean origin and the learned Collector (Adjudication) arbitrarily and illegally held these to be of Korean origin. It was also maintained that the imposition of personal penalty of Rs.500,000 is also very harsh and arbitrary which is dis-proportionate to the gravity of the offence. It was prayed that the goods be treated as a China origin and the value of identical/similar China goods may be applied to determine the assessable value and the personal penalty of Rs.500,000 be remitted being harsh, unjust and arbitrary.
4. In rebuttal on behalf of the respondent, it was urged that it has been established that the goods imported were of Korean origin and not of China origin and the value was correctly reassessed. It was also maintained that on the specific request of the appellant, the matter was adjudicated summarily. Furthermore, it was averred that the documents have been manoeuvred by way of prior understanding between supplier and the appellant and the order, passed by the respondent No.1 was unexceptional.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the representative of the respondent and perused the file record. Admittedly, the goods imported were of Job Lot Quality which was accepted by the appellant's counsel before the Collector. Under the Import Trade Order, 2003-2004, the goods of Job Lot Quality were not importable in the country. Admittedly, the goods were shipped from Korea. These goods were of famous brand of Korea and apparently to avoid higher valuation the appellant mis-declared their country of origin. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on a certificate purportedly issued by the Qingdao Korea Belt Co. Ltd. Which reads as follows:
"CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE RUBBER V-BELT SUPPLIED AS PER OUR OFFER SHEET NO.KB0308071 DATED 7-8-2003 TO Messrs FAIZ AHMAD & COMPANY, 18-BRANDRETH ROAD, LAHORE, PAKISTAN ARE -OF CHINESE ORIGIN AND MANUFACTURED BY QINGDAO KOREA BELT CO. Ltd., CHINA.
(Sd.)
QINGDAO KOREA BELT CO. Ltd."
6. It is interesting to note that this certificate does not bear the date of issue. The authenticity of this document has not been proved. In the absence of that I am not inclined to believe that the goods imported were of China origin particularly when they have been shipped from the Korean Port.
7. As regards the personal penalty of Rs.500,000, I feel that it does not meet the ends of justice and is harsh, therefore, this penalty is reduced to Rs.200,000
8. Order accordingly.
C.M.A./91/Tax(Trib.) Order accordingly.