Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (9) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Lamps. The value of the consignment was declared as Rs. 64,289/- based on the invoice raised by M/s. Subh Traders, Singapore. Since the Department was not satisfied with the declared value the case was taken up for investigation for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the declared value. On examination the goods were found to be `Halogen Auto Lamps 12V-55W(H3 Model) and of W-Phoenix Brand of Japanese origin and the manufacturer s name was found to be M/s. Phoenix Electronics Company Ltd., Japan. Since the goods were found to be `Phoenix Brand of Japanese origin, a direct telex enquiry was made with the manufacturers and they confirmed the prices for such lamps as Japanese Yen 95/pc fob. According to the Department in view of this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e manufacturer s price. He held that there is deliberate misdeclaration of value of the goods accordingly he ordered for confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. However he gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- (one lakh fifty thousand only) in addition to imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand only). 3. Arguing for the appellants Sh. A.S. Sundar Rajan, learned Consultant submitted that there was no valid reason to discard the transaction value since the similar goods have been imported and cleared for the same price at different ports including at Madras and the same was accepted by the Department. In the instant case the Department solely relied .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) E.L.T. 131. 4. Sh. A.K. Singhal, learned JDR while countering the arguments submitted that it is a case of misdeclaration since the goods are of Japanese origin whereas in the Bill of Entry it was declared country of origin as Singapore and not indicating Phoenix a known brand either in the Bill of Entry or in the invoice. He said that in view of the suppression of description Department had a reason to investigate further and on enquiry from the manufacturer it was revealed that transaction value was not the normal price in the course of international trade. The manufacturer s invoice was not produced at any time and the way clarification was received by the party on the very day but later by the Department and in view of the various .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral Excise - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 654 (T). 5. It was replied by Sh. Sunder Rajan, learned Consultant that the decisions referred to by the learned JDR are not applicable to the facts of this case since they were dealt with reference to old Valuation Rules or held in different context. In Sharp Business Machines (P) Ltd. (Supra) Supreme Court did not give ruling that quotation can be taken as the sole basis in determining the value but observed that nothing wrong in relying upon the quotations since it was produced by the importer and furthermore supplier was the authorised agent of the manufacturer. There was neither charge nor finding on the issue of misdeclaration of country of origin to discard the transaction value and the point to be con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sion was extended to other importers or price of similar imports was higher than declared price as it was rightly argued on behalf of the appellants. There is some force in the plea taken by the learned Consultant if the clarification issued by the manufacturer was not genuine it was open for the Department to make detailed enquiry and while determining the value the Department should adopt the Valuation Rules in sequence as specified therein. We may also point out that under Rule 3(ii) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, it is specifically provided that if the value cannot be determined under the provisions of clause (i), the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. In other words, Rule 3 pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates