9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant invoices for each of these two consignments showed the contents as 520.83 Gross set and the price as S $ 1640.62 CIF Cochin at the same rate of S $ 3.15 per Gross set . Adjudication proceedings were initiated by the Custom House for all the consignments alleging that the goods had been undervalued and that the quantity had been mis-declared as the quantity found on examination was double the declared quantity in gross. The appellant resisted the show cause notices contending that the invoice prices were correct and that the quantity shown in the invoices had been correctly declared in terms of gross sets, each gross set standing for two gross. The plea was not accepted by the Collector who passed his Order (original) dated 16-1-1992 in respect of the first consignment and order dated 4-11-1992 covering both the second and third consignments. Aggrieved with the orders, the appellant filed two appeals which the Tribunal, by a common order 112-113/1994-A dated 19-5-1994, allowed by remanding the matter to the Collector for de novo decision after affording proper opportunity to the Appellant to supply all relevant information and to give clear findings on the submissions b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the packing list filed by them showed the actual quantity in numbers correctly. There was no mis-statement of quantity by them. 3. The arguments were resisted by Shri M. Ali, Departmental Representative. He pointed out that the earlier import by the appellant was in April 1990. That was only a small part of the contract between the appellant and the same supplier. When that contract was in force, the appellant has imported the three consignments in question from that supplier at prices which were one fifth of such rates. Appellant was asked to explain this steep fall in price. The explanation was that the subject imports were rusted and from old stocks. This claim was not substantiated. The goods were found to be new and of good quality. Moreover, the supplier has purchased the subject goods from the Indonesian manufacturer at a price of S $ 3.00 per Gross set. The freight from Singapore to India for the two consignments imported in December 1991 was found on enquiry with the steamer agents to be US $ 131.16 for each. This worked out to S $ 217.23 each or S $ 434.46 for both consignments. If this is taken into account, it would mean that the suppliers had incurred a loss in suppl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own in the packing list figuring in the invoice, the price per piece would be 51 paise and not 25 paise as claimed. This evidence also negatives the claim of the appellant regarding the entry Gross Set . The dubious claim made by the appellant in this regard was also noted by the Tribunal in the earlier appeals of the appellant and the Tribunal had this to say in para 10 of its order :- Zipper is a fastener consisting of two rows of metal or plastic teeth on strips of tape and sliding piece that closes an opening by drawing the teeth together. `Set stands for things of the same kind that are used together. In the case of zip fastener (with two rows of teeth and a slider) it needs explanation as how it could mean two zip fasteners, complete in all respects. In the packing list there is reference to the number of pieces not the total number of zip fasteners. 5. The Bench then made an observation that for proper decision in the matter the above information/explanation would be relevant and necessary. The orders impugned in those appeals were set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication after affording proper oppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed price be accepted cannot be agreed to. 6. The plea has been taken on behalf of the appellant that there being no contemporaneous import of similar goods, the Department should not have rejected their invoice price. In support of such a plea, certain decisions have been cited. These are as follows : (1) Basant Industries v. Addl.Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (Supreme Court) (2) Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Nippon Bearings P. Ltd. - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 3 (Supreme Court) (3) Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Tarachand Co. - 1996 (85) E.L.T. 94 (Tribunal). (4) Kumar Associates v. Collector of Customs - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 500 (Tribunal). (5) Walia Enterprises, Amritsar v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 774 (Tribunal). (6) Sawhney Export House (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 327. In the first case at Sl. No.(1) Supreme Court had allowed the appeal of the assessee-importer and set aside the impugned order. In that case, the department s rejection of the declared price of US $ 1.80 for TAM Brand Bearings No. 75 II and adoption of a higher price of $ 2.20 per piece, the price at which another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pore to Cochin which was ascertained from the Steamer company American President Lines as US $ 131.16 for each of the two similar consignments of 10 cases each. The supplier would have incurred loss had he supplied the goods at the price of S $ 3.15 CIF Cochin per gross set. The unacceptability of the invoice price in view of the freight factor which was also referred to by the Departmental Representative during the argument has remained uncontroverted by the appellant. 7. The plea was taken on behalf of the appellant that their import was in April, 1990 much earlier than the subject import in July, 1991 and December, 1991 and the goods then imported were the make of a different country (Taiwan) while the subject imports were Indonesian goods of rusted quality and stocklot goods. There is no evidence available on record to support the claim of the appellant. The contract and invoices do not refer to any stocklot goods or rusted quality goods. The plea which was advanced before the Collector had been rejected by him and rightly, according to us. Another factor for the Collector to reject the invoice and go by the price at which the appellant had imported the earlier consignment wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
