ORDER Kuldip Singh, J.
1. M/s. Padia Sales Corporation, Delhi, ('The Corporation') imported a consignment of seventy five pieces of bearings called "GPZ Brand roller bearings No. 10777/ 670" from USSR and declared the total GIF value as Rs. 7,51,030/-, at the rate of Rs. 50,000/-per bearing. The Corporation further sought the clearance of the consignment under Open General Licence (OGL) in terms of the Import Policy 1985-88. On verification it was found by the Customs Department that the price of the bearing per piece was Rs. 1,79,631.76 and not Rs. 50,000/- as claimed by the Corporation. It was further found by the Department that the goods could not be cleared under OGL and as such the goods were liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). Accordingly, a show cause notice dated March 18, 1988 was issued to the Corporation alleging under-valuation to the extent of Rs. 28,37,432/- and further for the confiscation of the goods on the ground of misdeclaration. 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. 50,0007- to Rs. 1,79,631.76 per piece and further confiscated the bearings under Section III(d) read with Section III (m) of the Act. The Corporation was, however, given an option to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 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 correspondence produced by the Corporation on the record. The Collector by his fresh order of March 27, 1991, reiterated his earlier order except that the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 2,50,000/-, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the Corporation and it was held that Section III(m) of the Act was not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Corporation challenged the order of the Collector before the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted the) contention of the Corporation that the goods were covered by the OGL and as such the order of confiscation under Section III (d) of the Act was set aside. Consequently the redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- was also set aside. The Tribunal also accepted the contention of the Corporation that on remand the Collector had no authority to impose the penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed by the Collector. So far as the price of the imported goods was concerned, the Tribunal on reappreciation pf the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the corporation had under-invoiced the price of the goods and the Collector had rightly fixed the price per bearing at Rs. 1,79,631.76. The Tribunal, thus, partially accepted the appeal of the Corporation but dismissed the same on the question of valuation of the goods. This appeal by the Corporation under Section 130-E of the Act is against the order of the Tribunal.
2. We have heard Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant-Corporation. He contended that the invoiced price was a result of contract between the supplier and the appellant entered into after negotiations. No special treatment was given to the appellant by the supplier. The learned Counsel invited our attention to various letters placed on the record and taken into consideration by the Tribunal. 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. In addition he placed strong reliance on the printed price list issued by the manufacturers which showed the value of the imported bearings as Rs. 1,79,631.76 per piece.
3. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, on the basis of the material-produced before him came to the conclusion that the invoiced price of the imported goods was not acceptable. The Tribunal, in appeal, independently re appreciated the evidence and came to the same conclusion. We do not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the authorities under the Act
4. We have been taken through the order of the Collector and the Tribunal. We have also examined the correspondence placed on the record. The trade representative of the USSR in India in his letter dated January 20, 1987, addressed to the appellant-Corporation stated "please, note that these prices are specially quoted for you and therefore the same are not to be divulged to any other party in India." Apart from that the printed price list issued by the manufacturers specifically quotes the value of the imported bearings as Rs. 1,79,631.76 per piece. The Collector and the Tribunal have primarily based their findings on these two documents.
5. Section 14 of the Act provides that the value for the purpose of assessment would be:
(a) the ordinary price at which the goods are sold or offered for sale;
(b) price for delivery at time and place of importation;
(c) price in the ordinary course of international trade between the unrelated buyers.
6. The fact that the trade representative of USSR in his letter dated January 20, 1987 has asked the appellant not to divulge the specially quoted price to any other party in India, in itself indicates that the price offered to the appellant was a special price and not the ordinary price of such goods in the course of international trade. The price in the ordinary course of international trade has been indicated in the price list published by the manufacturers in USSR. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We agree with the reasoning and the findings reached therein. We also endorse the wish and hope entertained by the Tribunal in para 3.3 of its order regarding heavy demurrage.
7. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.