9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported multimedia projectors, comparison of imports with and without warranty, applicability of warranty costs in determining value, undervaluation allegations, reliance on previous similar import cases.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved a case where the appellants, a company, imported multimedia projectors from Singapore, specifically EPSON models EMP 7300 FM 7500 & EMP 7200. The declared values of these projectors were questioned, leading to a notice dated 4-2-2000 raising concerns about the FOB unit prices and potential duty discrepancies under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The notice also mentioned the possibility of confiscation under Sections 111(d) & 111(m) and the imposition of penalties under Section 112(d) on the appellants. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the appellants were the sole dealer of EPSON Singapore Pvt. Ltd. in India and that a third party import by C-DAC-Pune for the EMP 7200 model had rejected the proposed values for all the imported models. The tribunal considered various aspects, including the presence or absence of warranty in the imports. It was noted that the imports by C-DAC came with warranty, while the present imports were without warranty. The supplier in Singapore clarified the pricing differences, attributing them to warranty costs, service costs, and operational expenses involved. The tribunal emphasized that warranty costs should not be added if not incurred and charged by the shipper abroad, and that comparisons between imports with and without warranty were not valid. The tribunal also highlighted the commercial significance of warranties in the sale supply chain, emphasizing that warranty costs are a known commercial expense and cannot be dismissed as an "eye wash." It was pointed out that dealers in India, especially sole dealers, may receive goods at prices lower than consumer or retail prices due to various factors like discounts and warranty responsibilities transferred from overseas sellers. The tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's findings on undervaluation, misdeclaration, confiscation, and penal liability, citing lack of merit in the assessment. Moreover, the appellants referenced a previous order by the Commissioner (Sahar), Air Cargo, Mumbai, concerning similar imports where undervaluation charges were not upheld after examining correspondence with EPSON. The tribunal found no reason to disregard the findings of the Commissioner (Sahar) and decided to set aside the impugned order, ultimately allowing the appeals in favor of the appellants. In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants after a detailed analysis of the valuation issues, the impact of warranties on pricing, the inapplicability of certain charges, and the comparison with previous similar import cases, ultimately setting aside the original order.
|
