9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant submitted Bill of Entry dated 3-5-1990 and other import documents declaring CIF value as US $ 5.70 per hundred yards. The Additional Collector issued show cause notice suggesting valuation of US $ 7.50 per hundred yards CIF i.e., Rs. 1,27,659.57 for one lakh yards. Three REP licences produced covered Rs. 97,021.00. Thus it was alleged there was shortfall in licence. Notice also proposed confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) and penal action under Section 112 of the Act. The appellant resisted the notice. The Additional Collector passed the impugned order determining value at US $ 6.65 per hundred yards and since there was shortfall in licence, confiscating the goods valued at Rs. 16,170.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 19-1-1990, the impugned order adopted rate of US $ 6.65 as found in the other three invoices. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged the following contentions :- (a) The goods imported by the Appellant were not identical or similar to goods covered by the four invoices relied on by the Department and the compared imports were not contemporaneous and hence prices in those invoices could not be adopted. (b) The Additional Collector was in error in ignoring the evidence of three other imports produced by the Appellant. (c) In the light of (a) and (b) and in the absence of evidence of flow of additional consideration, the transaction value should have been accepted. (d) The enhanced value could not have been debited against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us a printed brochure relating to YKK Sliders". Pages 26 to 53 of the brochure refer to slider for Coil Zippers. The sliders have different notations such as 2SL, 1CF, 2CF, 2CE, 2FF(25CF), 3CF, 45CF and 5CF. But the notations relate not to Zip in Coil, but to sliders of Zip in Coils and therefore cannot have much significance. The documents relied on by the Appellant refer to goods covered thereunder as Zip in Coil No. 3 and Zip in Coil No. 5. A Bill of Entry produced by the Appellant contains the description Zip in Coils NO CF added in ink and the addition in ink is not initialled or certified. It is thus clear that ordinary Zip in Coils are described as No. 3" or No. 5" or by other appropriate numbers. It is true, as pointed out by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imports dealt with in the three documents are as follows :- Document Nature of goods and quantity Declared Value Remarks Order-in-Ap- peal No. 663/90, dated 16-4-1990 aga- inst Order-in-Original dated 21-12-1989 (Date of import not indicated) Zip in Coil No. 3 and Zip in Coil No. 5 Total 1 Lakh goods of Taiwan origin. US $ 3.55 and 5.50 per 100 yards respe-ctively. Order does not indicate if value was FOB or CIF. Assistant Collector enhanced to US $ 3.55 and 6.65 respectively. The latter was based on two imports of October and November, 1989 of 1,00,000 yards and 40,000 yards. This was set aside mainly on the ground that quantity imported by the importers in the case was very much lower t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd he stated that an order was deliberately placed at the Appellants instance to secure evidence regarding value during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings in this case. Even according to the document, the C F value was US $ 6.40 per 100 yards. The third document, photocopy of a Bill of Entry is suspicious since it contains a few insertions in ink and the entries in bottom left side are not copied and instead something else is copied. There is some manipulation in the document. 9. Learned Counsel on the basis of written submission made before the Additional Collector stated that in another case the value of Zip in Coil was increased from US $ 2.28 per 100 yards to US $ 5.97 per 100 yards and the appeal against such enhancement w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a relevant circumstance. But this circumstance has to be taken along with other circumstances in the case. The invoices relied on by the Department show that price of Zip in Coil No. 5 of Taiwan origin was steady at US $ 6.65 CIF per 100 yards in 1986, 1988 and 1989 and in early 1990, it went upto US $ 7.50 CIF per 100 yards. The Appellate Collector s order produced by the appellant shows that on an order for the large quantity of 10 lakh yards, the price was US$ 5.50 per 100 yards though it is not clear if the price was FOB or CIF. The test invoice of April, 1990 obtained by the Appellant shows price to be US $ 5.50 per 100 yards FOB or US $ 6.40 per 100 yards CIF, though the document cannot have much evidentiary value. These materials ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
