9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... `STI ). The matter was adjudicated by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Hyderabad, who observed that the goods imported were new goods and that they did not tally with the description as given in the shipping bills under which the goods were said to have been sent to STI, Singapore, for repairs. He denied the exemption under Notification No. 204/76-Cus. There were allegations with regard to mis-declaration of value also and the Deputy Collector of Customs had rejected the declared value and had arrived at the correct assessable values and had demanded customs duty based on such revised assessable value. He had imposed the redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and had demanded appropriate customs duty. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Hyderabad, confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, in so far his findings that the goods were brand new were concerned. He, however, set aside the order relating to the valuation and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Collector of Customs only for de novo adjudication relating to valuation after giving appropriate notice to the appellants giving the full details for fixing the value. He further observed that as the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions as laid down in that notification, were exempted from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon as was in excess of the duty which would be leviable if the value of such re-imported goods were made up of the fair cost of repairs carried out (whether such cost is actually incurred or not) insurance and freight charges both ways. It was provided in that notification that the Customs officer should be satisfied about the identity of the goods. The Notification No. 204/76-Cus. is extracted below : Re-import after Repair : Duty on repair cost, Insurance freight. 204/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976, as amended by 65/77-Cus., dated 28-5-1977, 207/86-Cus., dated 12-3-1986, 366/86-Cus., dated 23-6-1986, 242/88-Cus., dated 1-9-1988 : In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts all articles, when re-imported into India after having been exported for repairs, from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), as is in excess of the duty of customs which would be le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamination of the consignments had shown that the particulars of the WDDs imported did not tally with the particulars of the WDDs exported in respect of part numbers and models. 7. The clearing agent in his statement dated 13-2-1992, the statement enclosed with the Show Cause Notice, had admitted that the identification numbers as mentioned in the relevant shipping bills were not appearing on the WDDs and what had been imported appeared to be brand new goods. 8. When the examination of the goods revealed that the goods imported were not the same as had been supplied to the STI, Singapore, the appellants had written to the Indian representative of the suppliers as under : The above drives were examined by Customs at Hyderabad and it has come to our notice that all the drives (34 Nos. X 94155-86 and 11 Nos. X 94171-350) are fresh ones and not the ones we sent for repair. The serial nos./model nos. of the drives received do not tally with those of the ones received back." 9. From the order-in-original, it is seen that apart from the electronics PCB, the outer metal casings/coverings have also been changed. The adjudicating authority had observed that a sticker indicating th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for 2 drives for which the overseas suppliers have charged more, since their warranty period was expired. However, the letter dated 25-2-1991 of the importers to their overseas suppliers is clearly indicating that out of the 26 drives they intend to export there are only 3 Winchester Disk Drives which are under warranty. This list clearly shows that most of the drives which are re-imported now are out of warranty. Hence the statement of the importers that only 2 drives are out of warranty is a clear out mis-declaration. Moreover it is a well known fact in the International Trade the supplier normally will not charge for repair work for the goods supplied by him and returned to him within the warranty period. In this case the importers have paid repair charges under warranty period as claimed by them. The Physical appearance of the goods apart from the discrepancy of the Model and Serial Nos. is indicating that the goods are `Brand New . Normally repair work means either electronic PCB or the Motor inside will only be repaired but not the outer metal frame in which the electronics parts are encased. In this case apart from the electronics PCB the outer metal casing/coverings are a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the shipping bill itself. The SCN gives the discrepancies noticed. This clearly indicates that the sl. nos. and model nos. of the imported WDDs do not tally with the ones shown in the corresponding export documents. No doubt the appellant has given a tabular statement in the appeal memorandum and have argued that the details tally in respect of 16 WDDs and in respect of 12 WDDs there is difference only in respect of prefix and in respect of the remaining WDDs the details tally partially. However, on perusal of the documents concerned, I find that the appellant s claim is wrong. For example in respect of the 16 WDDs on which according to the appellant the appellant there is no discrepancy at all, If find that they do not tally with the nos. shown in the export documents. The 16 WDDs in question are claimed to have been exported vide shipping bill 168306, dated 27-9-1991. The list attached to the said shipping bill gives the details of the 34 WDDs exported under the said shipping bill. The list contains the 16 WDDs in question. Sl. no. 17 of the list attached to the shipping bill, gives the model no. and sl. no. of the WDD as 94155 and 04045936 respectively whereas on examination of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e brand new. The Deputy Collector has also stated that by repair work only electronic PCB or the motor inside the WDDs will be repaired but not the outer model frame in which the electronic parts are encase. In this case apart from the electronic PCB the outer model casing/coverings were also found to be brand new. Only sticker indicating the model and sl. no. is found pasted on the model frame. The Deputy Collector has observed that if the same model frames sent for repairs have been received back, then there should not be any discrepancy in the sl. no. and if Seagate had changed the sticker after repairs, there should be some sign of paste of some other sticker and whereas no such signs are found on the WDDs. This observation of the Deputy Collector has not been corroborated by the appellant. The appellant has questions the adjudicating authority s reliance on the opinion of CMC and ECIL but according to me even without recourse to their opinion, there is no doubt that the WDDs are not the ones sent for repairs but they are brand new. Further if the repairs have been carried out taking advantage of the warranty period then no charges will be charged. The appellant has not submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
