9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported goods, Alleged misdeclaration of value, Infringement of Import Trade Control Regulations.
Valuation of Imported Goods: The case involved the appellants importing 744 picture tubes of 20" size, Hitachi Brand from Hong Kong for manufacturing color television sets. The Customs Authorities disputed the declared FOB price of JY 16480 per piece, asserting it should be JY 23690 per piece. The Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, determined the correct FOB value, fixed the CIF value, and held goods worth Rs. 2,02,414.44 not covered by the ITC licenses produced. The appellants contested these findings, arguing they had negotiated a lower price for the tubes due to changed circumstances and refuted allegations of a special relationship with the supplier. The Collector's valuation was challenged as lacking factual basis and evidence to prove undervaluation or infringement of regulations. Alleged Misdeclaration of Value: The appellants challenged the Additional Collector's grounds for misdeclaration, which included comparing the present importation with an earlier one, alleging a special relationship with the supplier, and asserting superior quality of Hitachi brand tubes. The appellants argued that the Collector's grounds lacked merit and evidence. The tribunal agreed with the appellants, finding the Collector's order lacked sufficient evidence to prove undervaluation or a special relationship with the supplier. The tribunal accepted the appellants' declared value as correct, refuting the allegations of misdeclaration. Infringement of Import Trade Control Regulations: The alleged infringement of Import Trade Control Regulations was linked to the valuation of the goods. The ITC licenses produced covered a value of Rs. 6 lakhs, while the declared value by the appellants was Rs. 5,82,948. As the tribunal accepted the declared value, the goods were found to be covered by the licenses, leading to the conclusion that the charge of infringement of Import Trade Control Regulations could not be sustained. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the Collector's order, and directed the remittance of excess duty and redemption fine, if paid, to the appellants based on the tribunal's findings.
|
