1992 (11) TMI 179 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the assessable value of imported goods.
2. Relevance and reliability of quotations in determining the value.
3. Application of Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Validity of the discount applied by the lower authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Assessable Value of Imported Goods:
The appellants imported 1496 pieces of Room Thermostats Model 6060 B1047 from Dubai, declaring a value of Rs. 69,809.00 based on an invoice from M/s. Zainab Air Conditioning, Dubai. The Customs authorities, however, determined the assessable value as Rs. 6,07,397.00 based on a quotation from M/s. Usha Services and Consultants Pvt. Ltd. for a similar thermostat model at US $ 27.07 per piece. The appellants contended that the declared invoice value should be accepted as it was based on the offer from the authorized dealer of the manufacturer.

2. Relevance and Reliability of Quotations in Determining the Value:
The appellants argued that the quotations used by the lower authorities were not reliable as they were not related to actual imports and were obtained from a party not authorized to represent the specific product category. The Department, however, maintained that quotations from M/s. Usha Services were valid as they were based on the official price book of M/s. Honeywell, and the company was allowed to issue quotations for commercial and residential controls in some cases.

3. Application of Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal examined whether the invoice value or the deemed value under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 should be used for assessment. It was noted that under Section 14(1)(a), the value for assessment is the deemed value as provided in the section, even if the invoice price is genuine. The Tribunal cited previous judgments, including the case of Automotive Enterprises v. Collector of Customs, which supported the use of quotations for determining the assessable value.

4. Validity of the Discount Applied by the Lower Authorities:
The appellants contended that the 30% discount applied by the lower authorities was arbitrary. The Tribunal referred to previous cases, including the observation in the case of M/s. Metal and Alloys Industries, which indicated that quantity discounts typically range between 5% to 10%. The Tribunal found that the 30% discount was reasonable and not arbitrary.

Separate Judgments:
Majority Opinion:
The majority opinion, delivered by Member (Technical) and supported by the third member, held that the quotations from M/s. Usha Services were valid for determining the assessable value. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities were justified in using the quotation based on the official price book and that the 30% discount was reasonable. The appeal was dismissed based on this reasoning.

Dissenting Opinion:
The President dissented, arguing that a mere quotation could not be equated with an actual invoice and that the declared invoice value should be accepted. He emphasized that the quotations did not reflect actual sales and were not reliable for determining the assessable value under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act.

Final Order:
In view of the majority decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the assessable value determined by the lower authorities was upheld.