9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclaration form under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 was also furnished bearing the signature of one Shri Suresh Kumar purported to be the proprietor of the said importing firm. The same signatures of the said Shri Suresh Kumar were also found on the said bill of entry making and subscribing to a declaration as to the correctness of the said invoice and other documents relating to the goods covered by the said invoice. As per the said invoice, the imported goods are 10 cartons of electronic components, 30,000 pieces of IC LA 4440 of declared value S $ 2160 at the rate of S $ 0.072 per piece. A rubber stamp of Bank of India, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi was found affixed on the said invoice. Both the country of origin as well as shipment were declared to be Singapore. Intelligence gathered that the actual value of the said imported goods was much higher than that declared by the said importing firm and that the actual importer of the goods was not the real proprietor of the said importing firm. Based on this intelligence, investigations were initiated into the imports of the said imported goods by SIIB. The Directorate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e show cause notice dated 14th December, 1992. A show cause notice was issued and written reply dated 9th March, 1993 to the show cause notice was also filed. The adjudicating authority held that there were serious acts of forgery and the value of the said goods had been wrongly declared as shown above and the value of the said goods not to be taken as S $ 1.07 CIF per piece in terms of provisions mentioned in para 17 above. The appellants agitated that the Bombay Customs had accepted and determined the value of identical goods at the rate of 0.05 US $ CIF vide Bill of Entry No. 008030 dated 27th May, 1992 and Bill of Entry No. 006524 dated 22nd August, 1992. The adjudicating authority did not accept the contention of the appellant and held that it remained open to Bombay Customs to undertake review or any other suitable action under the Customs Act, 1962 for revising the value of identical goods declared at the rate of 0.05 US $ CIF. Regarding the import of identical goods by M/s. Sai Enterprises, Delhi cited above, the adjudicating authority had checked up and found that the Additional Collector had not adjudicated the case and suitable action under the Customs Act, 1962 was alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Entry No. 008030 dated 27-5-1992 filed by M/s. Maxwell India, 2218, Jamna Bazar, Delhi. (ii) Bill of Entry No. 006524 dated 22-8-1992 filed by M/s. Racho Sales Corporation, 1688/3, Bhagirath Place, Delhi. The computer print appears on page 56 of the paper book. The description of the goods is IC LA 4440. This means the imported product is the same. The value declared is Rs. 18,464.00 and the number of pieces is 10,000 and the value is Rs. 18,649.00 and per piece value comes to Rs. 1.86 and whereas the appellants had declared the same at Rs. 1.39. He referred to page 57 of the paper book and it is also computer print. It is dated 27th May, 1992 and 5000 pieces of IC LA 4440 were imported. The value declared was Rs. 7,728.00, whereas the assessed value is Rs. 7805.00 and per piece value comes to Rs. 1.54 and the documents on pages 56 and 57 were duly filed before the lower authorities. He referred to pages 44 and 45 of the paper book which are fax messages and the value declared is S$ 1.07 for LA 4440. Shri Rawal, the learned advocate drew the attention of the Bench that the date is the same but in both the fax messages the value is different and as such, no reliance can be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal) - Balvir Singh v. Collector of Customs. He again argued on the valuation aspect and referred to the Customs Valuation Rule 8(ii), (iii) and (iv). He laid emphasis on the word shall . He also argued that the fax messages on pages 44, 45 and 47 are Hong Kong to Singapore and on page 46 appears to be from Japan to Singapore and on page 48 from Sanyo Japan to Singapore. The other fax is from Singapore to Singapore on page 49. He pleaded for the allowing of the appeal of Shri N.K. Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s. Polyvinyl Industrial Corporation. Arguing on behalf of Shri M. Walia, he argued that there is no abetment and as such no penalty is leviable. He pleaded for the acceptance of the appeals. 4. Shri A.K. Singhal, the learned JDR in reply reiterated the facts. He reads the order-in-original. Shri Singhal, the learned JDR has also reiterated the facts. He laid special emphasis on para No. 9 of the order-in-original where the adjudicating authority has observed that Shri N.K. Aggarwal had sent a letter dated 11th August, 1992 addressed to the Appraiser to the effect that he was the sole proprietor of the said firm, but he had not imported any item at any time. He read his v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ghal argued that the value declared is too low and quotations were obtained by DRI in the present matter and the revenue had relied on the same. He referred to para No. 37 of the order-in-original which appears on page 86 of the paper book where the adjudicating authority has mentioned that correct value is S $ 1.07 per piece. He referred to the quotation from Shing Components (S) Pvt. Ltd., Singapore which appears on page 45 of the paper book. He also referred to the telex which appears on page 46 of the paper book and also on page 47. He argued that there is no evidence as to Singapore to Singapore quotation and referred to pages 48 and 49 of the paper book where it is mentioned US $ 0.72 and 0.71 per piece, respectively. 5. Now coming to the ITC angle, he referred to para No. 39 of the order passed by the adjudicating authority and in terms of Public Notice No. 22 (N-3)-ITC(PN)/92-97 dated 30th June, 1992, the definition of consumer goods contained in para 7(ii) of the ITC Policy AM 1992-97 was amended to read as : consumer goods means any consumption goods which can directly satisfy human needs without further processing and include consumer durable and accessories, compo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous imports on which the Department had relied. The fax message of Shing Components Pvt. Ltd. dated 28th September, 1992 appears on page 44. The value of LA 4440 has been shown at S $ 1.09 and on the same date in the fax message dated 28th September, 1992 which appears on page 45 of the paper book the same value has been shown at S $ 1.07 and the telex from the Collector of Customs, Madras to Mr. Sehab Singh, Deputy Collector which appears on page 46 of the paper book the price of integrated circuits LA 4440 (Sanyo make) as per quotation dated 30th November, 1992 issued by M/s. Sanyo is US $ 0.70 CIF and a copy of the quotation has been duly attached which appears on page 47 of the paper book. There are also quotations from M/s. Sanyo Shin-Nichi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (HK) and the value has been shown at US $ 0.72 which appears on page 48 of the paper book. There is no mention of country of origin. On page 49 the value has been shown US $ 0.71. On page 48 quotation is dated 9th September, 1992 and there is no date of the quotation which appears on page 49 of the paper book, whereas the importer has relied on the evidence mentioned in para No. 5 of the reply to the show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or exportation, as the case may be, in the course of international trade, where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer for sale. Provided that such price shall be calculated with reference to the rate of exchange as in force on the date on which a bill of entry is presented under Section 46, or a shipping bill or bill of export, as the case may be, is presented under Section 50." A perusal of the section shows that for the purpose of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other law for the time being in force whereunder a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such 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 or exportation, as the case may be, in the course of international trade, where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer. In the matter before us, the country of origin is Singapore. The adjudicating authority has resorted to Customs Valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bills of entry mentioned by the appellant. A perusal of both the paras and remaining part of the order shows that the adjudicating authority has not given any reason for not accepting the bills of entry cited by him which appear on pages 56 and 57 of the paper book and reference is made in para 5 of the reply to the show cause notice which appears on pages 51 and 52 of the paper book. In para No. 36 final observation has been made by the adjudicating authority. The said para is reproduced below :- 36. From the above investigations conducted and further findings in the subsequent paras, it is seen that this case involves serious acts of forgery and that the said invoice No. 855 dated 30-7-1992 produced with the said B/E does not relate to the said goods for the clearance of which the said B/E has been filed. In view of the above facts, the case law and the evidences in hand, I find that the value of the said goods has been wrongly declared and that the value of the said goods ought to be taken as 1.07 S $ per piece CIF of the said goods in terms of provisions mentioned in para 17 above. The party has stated that Bombay Customs has accepted the value of identical goods at rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate, on the other hand, relied on the REP licence which appears on pages 62 to 64 of the paper book and argued that the import is covered by the licence and alternatively he has pleaded that the goods are covered under OGL. Shri Rawal had referred to the bill of entry and argued that once the goods were ordered to be cleared, thereafter it is not open to the customs authorities to change its order. Only review order has to be passed. In support of his argument, he cited the following decisions :- (1) 1987 (28) E.L.T. 63 (Bom.) - Union of India and Others v. Popular Dyechem (2) 1987 (31) E.L.T. 745 (Tribunal) - Techmech Surgicals (India) v. Collector of Customs, Madras (3) 1988 (38) E.L.T. 105 (Tribunal) - Collector of Customs v. Mansingka Brothers (4) 1987 (31) E.L.T. 400 (Tribunal) - Decor India and Others v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi (5) 1982 (10) E.L.T. 43 (Del.) - Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others 9. Shri Singhal, the learned JDR referred to the definition of the consumer goods and referred to page 86 of the paper book and also referred to the Public Notice 22(N-3) ITC. He argued that this licence is not valid as the goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
