9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... negotiation with the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, (an Undertaking of the Maharashtra State Government) as well as their principal M/s. Gunsuns Sortex Ltd. (of Fairfield Road, London, England) the appellant purchased and imported six nos. Sortex Electronic Colour Separators (ex. demonstration machines in good condition) conforming to Model 425 together with recommended spares. The Bill of Entry was filed on 7-1-1982, declaring, inter alia, their aggregate assessable value to be Rs. 7,80,029/-; (b) a notice dated 10-5-1982 was issued to the appellant, alleging misdeclaration of the value and absence of Import Licence cover and consequently commission of offences under S. III (d) and (m) of the Act, and requiring the appellant to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were used for demonstration ; (ii) the international price list of the manufacturers shows the F.O.B. price of each machine to be 7920/-. Allowing a discount of 20% for demonstration, the F.O.B. value of six machines works out to 38016/- as against 18000/- declared, leading to an excess of 20016 (.Rs. 3,48,680 /-) and a shortfall in duty approximately in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- ; (iii) the licence did not cover the excess of Rs. 3,48,680/-; (iv) the licence also does not cover disposal goods ; (v) there is no evidence of any extra remittance of foreign exchange, although the goods have been insured for 10% over and above the invoice price; (vi) accordingly, the appraised value of 38016/- may be taken for assessment. Since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsequence had not been taken into consideration in the determination of the assessable value ; (e) the adjudication order furnishes no reasons at all for the conclusions on the assessable value and deserves to be set aside. 3. The decisions reported in- (i) 1984 E.C.R. 443 (ii) 1984 E.C.R. 287 (iii) 1985 (21) E.L.T. 140 (Tribunal)=1985 E.C.R. 646 (iv) 1985 (20) E.L.T. 335 (v) 1985 (20) E.L.T. 358 were relied upon for the appellant. 4. In reply, it was urged for the respondent that : (a) there is a categorical admission of the normal price of the machines (U.S. $ 15,000 each) in the postscript to the letter dated 20-3-1981 from the Maharashtra Hybrid Co. Ltd.; (b) the assessable value of the goods can be determined only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale at the time and place of importation, i.e., the market price at the time and place of importation [Cl. (a) of S. 14 of the Act] and where it is not so ascertainable, its nearest equivalent determined in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 [Cl.(b) of S.14 of the Act]. This was so even in terms of S. 30 of the Sea Customs Act [1978 E.L.T. 260- Vacuum Oil Company v. Secretary of State-wherein it was laid down that it was the price current for staple articles, the amount of which, if not a subject of daily publication in the press, is easily ascertainable in appropriate circles ] and no conceptual change had apparently resulted in the provisions as whole, notwithstandin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comes, altogether irrelevant. It furnishes the basis in terms of Rules 4(A), 5, 6 and 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 ; (g) this was the purport of our decisions in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 137 at 145 O.E.N. (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs C.E.]; 1985 E.C.R. 973 [Maheshwari Trading Co. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi]; judgment in Appeal No. 1021 of 1980-A-1985 (22) E.L.T. 283 (Tribunal) [Automotive Enterprises v. Collector of Customs, Bombay]; judgment in Appeal No. 1418/83-A [M/s. Allena Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs] and para 7 of our judgment in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 140 (Tribunal) = 198 5 E.C.R. 646 [M/s. Rakesh Press v. Collector of Customs, Bombay]; (h) to the same effect was the decision of the Calcutta High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace of importation, i.e. market price for such imported goods is unascertainable ; (k) it is, therefore, in terms of S. 14 (b) of the Act and the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 that the assessable value has to be determined ; (l) it is in this context that the learned counsel relies upon Rule 4(A) read with Rule 5 for a determination of the assessable value, Rules 3 and 4 being, admittedly, inapplicable. The condition precedent for the applicability of R. 4-A is the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector to the effect that the invoice price correctly represents the price charged for the goods in question. Such satisfaction cannot, of course, be arbitrary. When the contract was concluded through a State Government Undertaking, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
