9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs and imposing penalty of Rs. 2 lacs on the appellant for unauthorised import and mis-declaration of value. 2. Appellant entered into Technical Collaboration Agreement with Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. Japan for manufacture of Premier 118 NE cars in India on 5-7-1984. Approval of the Agreement was granted subject to condition that the appellant formulates a phased manufacturing programme progressively using indigenous components. Appellent submitted list of 331 components. Approval was granted only in regard to 306 components, deleting 25 components. Appellant applied for and obtained on 29-10-1984 import licence for spares issued under para 60 of April 1984-March 1985 Policy. M/s. ltoman Co. Ltd. is a trading unit of M/s. Nissan Motor Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turer, for spare parts the price charged to Collaborators was 35% less than the Master Price List price. 4. The invoice dated 29-8-1986 did not reflect the Master Price List price less 35% but, on the other hand, reflected CKD price in the CKD price list. There was objection regarding admissibility of import under the licence as also valuation. Goods were allowed to be kept at bonded warehouse on depositing the duty amount. Certain officers of the appellant were questioned. Show cause notice dated 10-12-1986 was issued stating that the licence did not permit import of spares to replace components which had been indigenously manufactured and, therefore, the import was not valid in law. The notice also proposed to reject the invoice price a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose alone could be imported. The purpose mentioned was providing warranty coverage or after sales service to customers. The nature of spares was also restricted. The licence allowed import of only such spares as were/are used by the unit as components at the time of manufacture. The language used in the licence makes it clear that spares could be imported to replace components in already manufactured machine if the manufacturers components had been used in such vehicles. We find that the Tribunal had taken the same view in an earlier case of the appellants which is reported in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Collector - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 146 (Tribunal). It is submitted that Reference Application moved before the Tribunal has been dismissed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated in this letter that discount rate will be set at 35% based on Nissan Master Price List. It is pointed out that the two invoices relating to the first order showed price on this basis. Second letter dated 12-2-1987 of the manufacturer addressed to the appellant referred specifically to the order 1eading to subject import. This was in response to a letter dated 18th December, 1986 of the appellant to the manufacturer seeking information on the basis of invoice price. This letter was written after the receipt of the show cause notice. The letter came to be written because the invoice did not reflect either the price list price or the discounted price. The manufacturer stated in this letter that parts sent to the appellant were supplied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in Indian Airlines Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 923 (Tribunal). Appellant in that case claimed discount of 28% shown in the invoice and this claim was rejected on the ground that it was a special discount not available to all buyers. Appellant was sole importer of the goods into India. Tribunal held that since there were no other importers of such goods in the country, the question of discount being treated as special did not arise. On this basis discount was allowed. Quantity discount in the International trade is a well-known concept which is accepted by authorities. Quantity discount very often may involve classification. If there are different quantity discounts depending on the quantity imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t valuation remains to be worked out. We therefore, agree that the goods are liable to be confiscated but could be permitted to be redeemed on payment of Redemption Fine and that penalty could be validly imposed. The quantum of Redemption Fine and penalty will have to be worked after working out the correct assessable value and duty payable. 11. We set aside the impugned order subject to the observations in the preceding paragraph and direct the jurisdictional Commissioner to re-assess the assessable value on the basis of Master Price List price less 35% discount and work out the duty payable by the appellant. Commissioner shall also pass an order confiscating the goods and permit redemption and quantify the redemption fine and the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
