9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. Inv. No. Impor- ters Supplier Descrip- tion Value Qty TotalC/O Rs. 1. 5456 dated 16-11-1989 DE/321/11/89 dt. 8-11-1989 Zenith Compu-ters Diplomat Electronics Singapore Laser Jet Printer US$5514 Per Unit (FOB) 5 241181 USA 2. 7699 9-2028/89 16-9-1989 After Business Machine P. Ltd. SBEE COPTEU Singapore TI 2106TI 2106 Laser Printer US$ 2500 Per unit (CIF) 1 41552 USA 3. 9668 dated 26-12-89 DE-324/12 189 dated 20-12-89 Zenith Technology Diplomat Electonic Singapore Laser Jet Printer Model 2106 US$ 2767 per unit (FOB) 18 444176 USA In view of this, the department called upon the appellants to explain about the undervaluation on the basis of the details furnished in the above chart. It is contended by the importer that (a) In case No.1 the importers, M/s. Zenith Computers, imported not only Laser Jet Printer but also extra options as has been confirmed by the suppliers M/s. Diplomat Electronics who have supplied the working sheet. According to the said w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dard input tray. In other words both standard and optional input trays cannot be fitted/built in the laser printer simultaneously and therefore the explanation that extra optional input tray was imported in that case did not appear to be correct. (d) In Case No. 2 the description of the goods in Bill of entry/invoice is laser printer and not laser printer with options. As per examination report recorded on reverse of Bill of entry in Case No. 2 the goods are found to be as per invoice description. As such, no presumption could be made that the laser printer is Case No. 2 was alongwith options. On the basis of the above analysis it appeared that the goods imported in all the above cases including that of the importers are same i.e. laser printer. Hence it appeared from the comparative chart mentioned in Para 2 that the value in case of subject imports is significantly low when compared to value of contemporary imports (viz. Case No. 1 and Case No. 2). In accordance with normal trade practice it could not have been possible for the suppliers to supply the subject goods at such a ridiculously low price and hence the invoice did not appear to reflect the correct price at which such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o dispute has been raised by the department with regard to classification of the benefit of notification in question. In the impugned order the Collector has held that the identical goods has been imported by the same country of origin at almost double price. It itself shows that the declared transaction value is not at all acceptable in this case in view of the reasons : (i) that the department had produced evidence of two imports of laser printer at much higher price and details of these are the one disclosed by them. He has held that the import in other two cases were also only laser printer and there was no extra options/accessories imported therein. He has rejected the importer s contention that the importer in S. No. 1 of the table had imported extra options on the ground that the importer had informed the department that this input tray was inbuilt in the laser printer. He has also rejected the plea of the importer that the extra optional type faces/character sets were inbuilt in the laser printer, is not correct. For this he has again relied on the imports of the other two parties. He has also rejected the plea of quantity of 18 imported by this importer as against 5 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eof since the one imported by Zenith Computers - a sister concern of the appellants had various extra accessories which had been fully described in the supplier s invoice. It is stated by them that the said invoice itself explicitly showed that the bare printer is priced at Singapore Dollars 2767/- which is the same as the price charged to the Appellants by the same supplier for supply effected to the Appellants. It is further stated that the said invoice further mentions and enlists six different types of instruments attached and described as Extra options which had been separately valued at Singapore $2767/-. It is stated by them that even the Bill of Entry filed by the said Zenith Computers also showed the said value and as such described as Laser Jet Printer Texas Instruments and further described in the invoice as Texas instruments under the caption Extra Options. It is stated that the Appellants invoice in terms described 18 numbers of the said printers as Laser Jet Printers which by itself proved that the same was without any extra options and that there was no Texas instruments attached thereto. The appellants stated that the inquiries made with M/s. Diplomant Elec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s v. Collector of Customs 1992 (60) E.L.T. 442 (Tri.) 5. M/s. Sushil Kumar Kayan v. Asstt. Collector of Customs 1993 (68) E.L.T. 537 (Cal.) = 1996 (62) ECR 32 (Cal.) 6. Collector of Central Excise Customs v. M/s. Papyrus Papers Ltd. 1993 (65) E.L.T. 212 (Tribunal) 7. M/s. Manjushree Minerals Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1993 (68) E.L.T. 273 (Cal.) 8. Gandharv Trading Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras 1995 (78) E.L.T. 276 9. M/s. Basant Industries v. Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (SC) 10. M/s. Poysha Indl. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 141 (Tribunal) 7. Ld. DR argued on the basis of the findings given by the lower authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the records. The question that arises to consideration is as to whether the price declared in respect of Laser Jet Printer by the appellants in the invoice and the Bill of Entry is required to be accepted? The department has relied on the Bill of Entry dated l6-11-1989 in respect of Zenith Computers wherein the value has been shown as Singapure $ 5514 as against $ 276 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the value of Aftek Business Machine is comparable with the importers. It is also very clear on perusal of the impugned order and the evidence on record that the department has not proved the case of under valuation in the present case. They have also not shown the reasons for rejecting the invoice price declared by the appellants and for proceeding under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The rulings relied by the appellants in their favour supports the stand they have taken up and it required to be applied in the present case. 10. In the case of Honesty Traders, the Tribunal has held that under Section 14(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962, the value for the purpose of assessment of duty would be the deemed value as provided for under that Section. It has been held that for comparison of the value, the goods should be the same in respect of physical characteristics, quality, reputation, country of origin, timing of import. It has also been held that the assessed value cannot be determined on the basis of mere assumptions and presumptions and that suspection however, grave cannot be substitute for positive proof and in this regard, the Tribunal has relied on its earlier judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. Hon ble Supreme Court has held that mere comparison of invoices received by the importer with the invoice of imports of same goods by other importer is not conclusive for determination the question of undervaluation. Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the relationship between the importer and foreign supplier has also to be kept in mind because it is a matter of common knowledge that a price which is offered by a supplier to an old customer may be different from a price which the same supplier offers to a totally new customer. 15. In the case of Poysha Indl. Co. Ltd., the Tribunal has held that the Collector placed reliance on two instances of contemporaneous import at value higher than value declared by the appellant. The relevant invoices bore the dates 18-3-1987 and 13-4-1987. The corresponding dates of indents were 30-1-1987 and 16-2-1987. The quantities imported are not known. The Tribunal held that the appellant had contracted with the suppliers for import of 5000 m.t. of tin plate prime in March, 1986 and the price was fixed at that stage itself. By the time the subject import was made, more than half the contracted quantity had already been imported and cleared. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
