1997 (11) TMI 253 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Winchester Disk Drives (WDD) for exemption under Notification No. 204/76-Cus.
2. Mis-declaration of value and identity of the imported goods.
3. Determination of customs duty and imposition of redemption fine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility of Winchester Disk Drives (WDD) for exemption under Notification No. 204/76-Cus.:

The primary issue in this appeal relates to the eligibility of the Winchester Disk Drives (WDD) imported by the appellants for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 204/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, as amended. The appellants claimed that the WDDs were re-imported after being exported for repairs and thus should be liable for customs duty only on the fair cost of repairs, insurance, and freight charges both ways. However, upon examination, it was found that the imported goods did not tally with those sent for repairs to M/s. Seagate Technology International, Singapore (STI). The Deputy Collector of Customs, Hyderabad, and subsequently the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Hyderabad, determined that the goods were brand new and did not match the description in the shipping bills used for export. Consequently, the exemption under Notification No. 204/76-Cus. was denied.

2. Mis-declaration of value and identity of the imported goods:

The examination revealed that the marks and numbers on the imported WDDs did not match those on the exported goods. The clearing agent admitted that the identification numbers did not appear on the WDDs and that the imported goods seemed brand new. The appellants' communication to the Indian representative of the suppliers acknowledged that the drives received were fresh and not the ones sent for repair. The adjudicating authority noted changes in the outer metal casings/coverings and discrepancies in serial numbers, leading to the conclusion that the goods were brand new. The supplier's communication indicated that older drive models might have components replaced due to technological changes, but the customs authorities were not satisfied with the identity of the goods.

3. Determination of customs duty and imposition of redemption fine:

The Deputy Collector of Customs rejected the declared value of the goods and determined the correct assessable values, demanding customs duty based on the revised values. A redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- was imposed. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) confirmed the findings regarding the goods being brand new but remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on valuation, instructing the adjudicating authority to redetermine the redemption fine based on the value determined in the remand proceedings.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, rejecting the appellants' claim for exemption under Notification No. 204/76-Cus. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the view that the imported WDDs were brand new and not the ones sent for repairs. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the lower authorities was affirmed, denying the exemption and upholding the imposition of customs duty and redemption fine.