9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. Rs. 400000/- (paid) Rs. 50000/- (paid) Cleared and sold out 200 Nos. 1550000/- 200000/- (paid) Un-cleared 45 Nos. 414067/- 25000/- (paid) Cleared 100 Nos. 1500000/- (not paid) 200000/- (paid) Un-cleared 3. The facts relevant to these matters are that that the appellants, a Public Limited Company, manufacture among other things, Photocopying Machines. They entered into an agreement with NASHUA Corporation of U.S. (hereinafter referred to as NASHUA). The DGTD registered them for the manufacture of 8000 Photocopying Machines and Developers. A licence dated 30th April 1982 for components (as per list attached) was issued to the appellants for a face value of Rs. 3.73 crores. On 31-3-1984 the appellants applied for issue of a fresh licence of a value of Rs. 2.08 crores which was equivalent to the unutilised portion of the earlier licence. They obtained a licence for Rs. eighty lakhs on 5-1-1985 and this licence permitted the goods to be imported as "As per list attached". Thereupon the appellants placed a purchase order on M/s. Bairo A.G. Zurich for the supply of components for the plain paper copier. The purchase order was for 73 Nos. of various components/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was not a condition of the licence. 7. The learned Consultant submitted that the Collector's finding that the "main frame" refers to only bare frame was wrong. The correct description of the item is "copier frame" which is the heart of the machine accounting for over Rs.1.27 crores in the present importation, and referred to the first licence issued to the appellants on 30-4-1982 submitting that when they applied for the second licence in August 1984 the same list was filed as they did on the earlier occasion. He argued that the licensing authorities condensed the list for the sake of brevity but maintained the CIF value which shows that the copier frame or main frame is not bare frame as held by the Collector but in fact an assembly and an important component of the copier. He further argued that the Collector was wrong in holding (paragraph 13) that apart from 17 items included in the list attached to the licence there were other parts not listed in the licence but imported as parts of the main frame. He submitted that all the imported articles were parts of the main frame including main control unit (with the printed circuit board assemblies), the halogen lamp and the lense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods were prepared system-wise and the oil reservoir is part of the drive assembly. Similar explanation was made in respect of cassettes and filters and other parts. 13. Shri Srinivasan argued that the Collector was wrong in holding that for ITC and valuation purposes the importation consisted of photocopying machine. He submitted that there were complications further in the manufacturing operations before the copiers could be made. 14. Shri Srinivasan submitted that except the cover glass (not 13 numbers as found by the Collector, in fact 73 Nos., 589 in all) there was no importation over and above what was ordered. He finally pleaded that the difference in nomenclature should not lead to refusal of the licence and confiscation of the goods and emphasised that the word parts includes components, accessories or spares. 15. In respect of value Shri Srinivasan submitted that Nashua Corporation is not a related person of the appellants. Nashua Corporation manufacture selerium drums and were collaborators but not associates. In this context the learned Consultant strongly relied on a judgment of the Tribunal in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. [1987 (28) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the licence covered 52 non-electric specified components and not the imported goods. 18. Supporting the valuation ordered by the Collector Shri Krishnamurthy submitted that the suppliers and the importers/appellants were related persons and that the prices of Ricoh were higher than those at which the goods were imported by the appellants. He also submitted that there were no details of negotiations between Nashua Corporation and the appellants made available. 19. In his brief rejoinder Shri Srinivasan submitted that the imported goods were strictly according to the purchase order which was in agreement with the list submitted to the licensing authorities. He reiterated that the switch board is part of the main frame and the PCB is an integral part of the control unit. 20. We have considered the submissions of both sides. In so far as licensing is concerned elaborate submissions made by the learned Consultant for the appellants led to the claim that the imported parts of the photocopier were covered by the licence and that the list attached to the licence in question should be interpreted to mean assemblies and sub-assemblies which go with the specified parts. The learned Consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis that the suppliers and importers are related persons and, therefore, the price is not to be accepted. The learned Consultant's reliance on the ratio of Maruti Udyog Ltd. is well taken. A perusal of the judgment leads us to the conclusion that in this case there is only technical collaboration and royalty has not been paid. Where there is no evidence to show any mutual interest, it cannot be held that these two parties are related persons. Therefore, the rejection of the invoice does not seem to be correct. It is not as if the Customs noticed other imports of similar goods at higher prices. Shri Srinivasan more than once stated that the importation of this kind took place for the first time. Therefore, the basis for increasing the value is not sound. Mutuality of interest not having been established we set aside the findings on valuation and order that the invoice value should be accepted. 24. The appellants themselves accepted that the cover glass was imported over and above the order. They however, pleaded against its valuation. There is nearly 1000% difference in the value claimed by the appellants that fixed by the Customs. We direct that in view of the discrepancy an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
