9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per piece for cooling coils with expansion valve and Singapore $ 18 per piece for motor. According to the department the value declared by them for the goods was very low. It was ascertained that in case of import of cooling unit assembly by M/s. Subrose Ltd., New Delhi, the value of the cooling unit was declared yen 7052 per piece (FOB) which was approximately equal to Singapore $ 100 pieces and in the case of a quotation obtained from Singapore the value was seen to be Singapore $ 60 and Singapore $ 20 respectively for cooling coils and motor. Based on this information, show cause notice was issued as to why duty should not be assessed in the case of cooling coils. Taking value at Singapore $ 60 per piece and the duty on motor taking the value as Singapore $ 20 per piece. After considering the reply to the show cause notice and hearing submissions made by the party, the Additional Collector who adjudicated the proceeding held that the value declared for imported cooling coils is not acceptable. He ordered that CIF value of Singapore $ 60 per piece cooling indicated in the show cause notice was reasonable and should be adopted for assessment of cooling coils. He held that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce to imports and quotations from M/s. Precision Auto Air Conditioning (P) Ltd., Singapore were got verified through D.R.I. office at New Delhi, from the First Secretary at Hongkong. Note sheets indicate intention to make enquiry, but no such enquiry has been done and however if any, was not revealed to the party. Further quotation from M/s. Precision Auto Air Conditioning (P) Ltd. was not verified by the First Secretary at Hongkong as it was stated and mere `seen does not amount to `verification as it was observed by the Tribunal in the case of Malwa Vanaspati Chemical Co. Ltd., Indore v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore, reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 693, that remarks, `seen written below the memorandum of approval by the Assistant Collector not tantamount to approval of classification. Further Department wanted to introduce the proforma invoice issued by M/s. Uniden Systems, Singapore to appellants by way of additional evidence which was recovered from M/s. M.M. Enterprises in connection with search. Documents seized in the premises of third party cannot be used against the appellants and in support of his contention he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that suspicion cannot take place of proof and penalty cannot be imposed in the absence of mens rea. 6. Arguing for the Revenue Smt. C.G. Lal submitted that this is a case of underinvoicing and misdeclaration since the country of origin was not mentioned at the first instance and subsequently claimed goods of Malaysia as against Japan. Country of origin has become clear from the proforma invoice and since the value declared by the appellants was very low, detailed enquiry was conducted as can be seen from the notesheets and based upon the evidence that similar goods were imported at point of time the value was enhanced. She said that imports made by M/s. Subrose Ltd. are not identical goods, not they are used as supportive evidence and taking into consideration country of origin, nature, value and quantity of goods i.e. 320 pieces as against 70 pieces sufficient allowance was given while determining the value of the imported goods in this case as it was held in the case of Sarin Sons v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 418. She argued that quotation of M/s. Precision Auto Air Conditioning (P) Ltd., Singapore is the main evidence which has to be relied upon i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpansion valve. On going through the facts and on seeing the items imported by M/s. Subrose Ltd. with reference to nature, type, quality and use, the items imported by M/s. Subrose Ltd. are neither identical goods nor similar goods and cannot be said to be a contemporaneous evidence. It is well settled that burden lies on the department to prove undervaluation with contemporaneous [evidence] and comparison [of] value of the goods should be same in respect of physical characteristics, quality reputation, country of origin and timing of importation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the value of the goods imported by M/s. Subrose cannot be compared with that of goods imported by the appellants in determining the value of the goods. Other evidences relied upon by the department in determining the value are quotations from supplier and proforma invoice procured from M.M. Enterprises during search. Proforma invoice refers to a country of origin but confirms the price of invoice value. This piece of evidence is favourable to the party and there is force in the argument advanced by the appeallants Counsel that document as such should be accepted as a whole and not in part. Next ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
