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

1995 (1) TMI 144

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ein. The brief factual background as set out in the impugned order is as follows :- M/s. Ankit Audio Industries, (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) imported a consignment of Switches DXT-15-8-1" (Rating 220 v and 2.5 Amps) of Chinese origin from Singapore under invoice number TT/387 dt. 30-10-1992. The value declared was Singapore $ 0.25/pc FOB. However, the Additional Collector enhanced the value of impugned goods to that of observed price in case of M/s. Sulabh Corporation after extending a quantity discount of 10% over the observed price. Aggrieved by this order the appellants preferred an appeal. This office set aside the order of the Additional Collector and remanded the matter to him with the following observation : Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Appeals) however, sent the C.O. Certificate produced before him to the Addl. Collector for his comments. The Addl. Collector commented that it was significant that the C.O. Certificate had not been produced even during the first round of the case before Collector (Appeals) and he also doubted the authenti- city of the certificate as it bore signs of corrections in the name of suppliers con- tained therein. The Collector (Appeals) noted that Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 1988 requires that the identical goods should be same in all respects and should be from the same country of origin. But the Collector (Appeals) found that the Sulabh Corporation import was not from the same country of origin as it was from Hongkong whereas the respondents i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... learned SDR. The Addl. Collector has also made due adjustment in the price arising out of difference in the quantity of goods in the Sulabh Corporation imports as per Valuation Rules. Collector (Appeals) in the Department s view has held Rule 5 of Valuation Rules inapplicable ignoring the evidence of the department regarding import of same goods at higher price. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents Shri J.S. Sinha urged that the certificate of origin relating to import by Sulabh Corporation has been now produced belatedly and is hence unacceptable. It is also at variance with the country of origin as Hongkong declared by Sulabh Corporation in the related Bill of Entry. Their import is not contemporaneous and was only for 2000 pieces wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed that the goods had been lying uncleared for very long time and the Department should issue detention certificate to relieve demurrage charges. Learned SDR in reply however urged that this aspect does not arise at all for determination in this appeal. 5. The submissions made by the learned SDR and learned Counsel for the respondents have been carefully considered. It is found in this case that the Department has issued the show cause notice for enhancement of the value under Valuation Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 read with Section 14(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962. Rule 5 of Valuation Rules covers transaction value of identical goods in a sale at the same commercial level and in substa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t four months of the import was much higher. The only difference was in quantity. The respondents imported 10,000 pieces and Sulabh Corporation import was 2000 pieces. The goods imported by the appellants are of Chinese origin and it has now been shown before us that Sulabh Corporation import was also of the same origin. It is not possible to accept the respondents contention that the certificate of origin now produced being subsequent to clearance should be discarded. This is because all the particulars of the goods and of their time and mode of import tally with Certificate of Origin-Re-export which has been issued retrospectively by the Hongkong General Chamber of Commerce. Further, as has been observed by the Collector (Appeals) in t .....

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