9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the determination of assessable value of imported goods under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of penalty on the appellants, and the justification for invoking the longer period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Assessable Value of Imported Goods: The Collector of Customs, Bombay demanded duty and imposed penalties on the appellants for undervaluation of imported kits of components of color Television Sets from Japan in 1985-86. The Department relied on incriminating documents indicating under-invoicing, statements by the appellants, and investigations by Japanese police. The Collector adopted higher prices from Japanese invoices for all consignments and added a flat percentage towards freight and insurance. The appellants argued against the justification for discarding invoice prices without corresponding Japanese invoices and the arbitrary nature of the added percentage. Penalty Imposition: The Senior Counsel contended that the penalty on one of the appellants was unjustified as there was no evidence of involvement in price manipulation post-1985. The Departmental Representative argued that the evidence showed manipulation of prices to evade duty and import restrictions, justifying the penalty. The pivotal role of the appellant in controlling pricing decisions was highlighted, leading to the sustenance of the penalty. Invoking Longer Period under Section 28: The Collector relied on Japanese invoices and export declarations to determine assessable value, dismissing arguments against the authenticity of these documents. The appellants failed to provide a convincing defense against the Collector's findings of price manipulation to evade duty. The Collector's decision to invoke the longer period under Section 28 was upheld based on deliberate distortion of prices. Separate Judgement by Shri K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T): In a separate judgment, it was noted that the Chairman of the importing firm played a significant role in controlling pricing decisions to avoid higher duty. Despite denials of personal involvement in price manipulation, the controlling position held by the appellant in both the supplier and importer firms indicated a pivotal role. The failure to provide an explanation for pricing irregularities and the lack of accountability led to the sustenance of the penalty on the appellant. The appeals were rejected based on the circumstances discussed.
|
