9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the import licences for the import. 2. Valuation of the imported goods. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Import Licences: The appellants imported 3000 PCS of condensers and declared the consignment value as Rs. 2,72,054/-. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice for confiscation and penalty, alleging the import of restricted items without a proper licence and under-invoicing. The appellants contended that the licences were valid for items under App. 3, Part A, as per the policy at the time of issuance. They argued that the ITC Public Notice No. 109/21-3-1989, which reclassified condensers for Car Air Conditioners as restricted items under App. 2, Part B, could not retrospectively invalidate their licences. The Department countered that the import policy was amended before the shipment date, making the licences invalid for the restricted items. They cited the case of S.S. International v. Union of India, asserting that public notices have binding effects and can amend import policies. The Department maintained that the validity of the licence must be assessed based on the policy at the time of actual importation. Upon consideration, it was determined that the import policy amendment was valid, and the licences were not applicable for the restricted items at the time of importation. Thus, the Department's stance on the invalidity of the licences was upheld. 2. Valuation of the Imported Goods: The Department rejected the declared transaction value of S $ 10/PC CIF for the condensers, arguing that it was significantly lower than comparable models. They primarily relied on a quotation from M/s. Sanden International (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd., which listed the price as S $ 40/PC Ex W/H for similar condensers. The appellants argued that the transaction value should be accepted as there was no evidence of extra consideration paid. They contended that the Department failed to exhaust preceding valuation rules before resorting to Rule 8 and criticized the reliance on a domestic price quotation from Singapore. The appellants also pointed to discrepancies in the quotation and provided evidence of similar goods being cleared at lower prices at Kandla Port. The Tribunal found that the Department was correct in rejecting the transaction value due to misdeclaration and significant price differences. However, they agreed with the appellants that the Department did not adequately disclose evidence for rebuttal and improperly relied on a domestic quotation. The case was remanded to the Collector to re-examine the valuation, considering additional evidence and the outcome of related investigations. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with the following directives: - The Department's decision on the invalidity of the import licences was upheld. - The issue of valuation was remanded for re-examination, with instructions to consider additional evidence and provide the appellants an opportunity for rebuttal. - The adjudicating authority was given the liberty to reconsider the imposition of fine and penalty based on the re-determined value of the goods.
|
