9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll of Entry filed for the clearances of the goods. The appellants imported 24 sets of second hand waterjet looms and filed Bill of Entry for the same. On examination it was found that the goods were old and used and no re-conditioning was carried out. The order of the year of manufacture was found to be 1982 and not 1981 as indicated in the Chartered Engineers Certificate filed by the appellants. The value declared for the looms was Japanese Yen 4 lakhs per set. It was noticed that the Japanese supplier M/s. Jinbo Boeki Shokai had supplied identical goods to M/s. Hibotex P. Ltd., Surat at the rate of Japanese Yen 7 lakhs per set vide their invoice dated 23-6-1988. The Hibotex consignment was shipped on 25-6-1988 whereas the goods of the appellants herein was shipped on 18-6-1988. In terms of Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, the value of the goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation. Since the date of invoice and date of shipment and date of arrival of the goods imported by M/s. Hibotex P. Ltd. were contemporaneous as those of the appellants and since the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing for the Collector adopts the reasoning given in the impugned order and pointed out that it was on examination of the goods that the discrepancy regarding the year of manufacture was found and further investigation showed that price at which M/s. Hibotex P. Ltd. had imported the goods was much higher and that too from the same supplier about the same time. The appellants claim that the value difference between the two was due to re-conditioning of the Hibotex machine is also not borne out as the Chartered Engineers certificate in the case of both are similarly worded. There is nothing to show that the machines imported M/s. Hibotex P. Ltd. were re-conditioned. He also drew attention to the comparison of the values of the three imports brought out in the adjudication order which clearly indicate a rising trend and the lower price declared by the appellants during the same period was clearly questionable. The letter of 7-9-1988 from the supplier obtained by the appellants was subsequent to the filing of the Bill of Entry and it is clear that it has been given by the supplier as desired by the appellants to satisfy their purpose and to suit their defence. The deduction of Japan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, pointed out to another import of M/s. N.V. Textiles and K.V. Textiles which were also of the same machines (second hand) but at a lower value of Japanese Yen 5 lakhs than the value of Hibotex and they further claimed that because they had placed a large order for 80 sets they had been given quantity discount by the suppliers of Japanese Yen 1 lakh on the basis of which their price was comparable with the previous import. The question is, how far the criterion in Section 14(l)(a) is satisfied. This section refers to the time and place of importation and if on this basis we compare the time of import it is found that there is much more proximity between the date of shipment by the Hibotex P. Ltd. and that of the appellants and also equal proximity in the date of arrival of these two imports because the appellants goods were shipped on 18-6-1988 and Hibotex on 25-6-1988. The appellants goods arrived on 26-7-1988 and that of Hibotex P. Ltd. on 4-8-1988. The supplier of the machines from Japan is the same, the goods imported are in both cases second hand machines. That the machines imported by the two parties had not been reconditioned is clearly evident from the wording of the Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt from one another. The certificate in the case of appellants is These machines do not require any repairing and are in satisfactory working condition and the expected residual life is at least 8 years. The certificate in the case of Hibotex was These machines do not require reconditioning or repairing and are in very good working condition and the expected residual life is about 8 years . Therefore, the contents of the certificate from the supplier produced subsequent to the initiation of proceedings against the appellants has rightly been not accepted on this aspect. Thus the value of similar second hand machines imported from the same Japanese supplier about the same time at the Bombay Port have been found to be higher on the basis of contemporaneous imports of Hibotex P. Ltd., the adoption of the higher value is correct. The acceptance of the amount of discount as given in the supplier s letter of 7-9-1988 by the adjudicating authority is more in the nature of a collateral evidence and hence would not mean that for that reason that letter should be accepted as a whole. 5. The appellants have relied upon the CEGAT decisions in Rakesh Press -1985 (21) E.L.T. 140, Tara Art P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the market price ruling on or about the date of import at the place of import; (e) the expression in the course of international trade merely means and signifies the movement of goods from abroad into India and has also a reference to a period of time during which the movement is in progress pursuant to or connected with trade and commerce with other countries, following the ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court in AIR 1953 S.C. 333 (State of Travancore v. S.V.S. Factory) while construing in the course of import of goods into or export of the goods out of India . The expression in the course of international trade does not, in any ease, signify the invoice price in the case of the import in question". (f) this is not to say that the invoice price becomes, altogether irrelevant. It furnishes the basis in terms of Rules 4(a), 5, 6 and 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963." Clearly in the present case the Deptt. had the evidence of value from contemporaneous import of such or like goods namely second hand machinery from the same supplier and imported at the same port and we hold that the value so determined is value for assessment under Section 14(l)(a) of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
