9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing Machines Manufacturing Co. Limited of Japan and M/s. Juki (Hongkong) Limited, Hongkong. Importers were in the name of M/s. AMN India and M/s. Zoro Garments. M/s. Oceanic Exports imported sewing machines from M/s. Juki. The issues involved in all the aforesaid imports are more or less similar except the name of importers and suppliers being different in the case of M/s. Oceanic Exports. Show Cause Notice was issued asking them to explain as to why the values declared by them should not be enhanced; why the lower values declared should not be treated as a deliberate attempt to evade payment of duty and why it should not be treated that the imports under the additional licence in the name of individual firms operated through a power of attorney contravene imports licence provisions as laid down in para 118(2) of the Import Export procedures and why the goods should not be confiscated u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why a penalty should not be imposed on the appellants. 3. During the course of investigations, officers recovered price list dated 26-6-1987 of M/s. Pegasus Sewing Machines Mfg. Co. Ltd. issued to M/s. India Agencies and also a proforma invoice issued by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of penalty. 5. Regarding violation of para 118(2) of the Handbook of Import Export Procedures, the ld. Counsel submitted that the procedure described in the handbook is not statutory nor can it be termed as a mandatory provision. He submitted that even if there is a violation by not following the procedure set out in para 118(2) of the Handbook, it does not amount to violation of the Act or the rules framed thereunder. It is only a simple technical lapse on the part of the importer and, therefore, cannot lead to confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. 6. In so far as M/s. Zoro Garments are concerned, he submitted that 45 machines were imported by them directly; invoice price was US $ 710; that the price in the price list was US $ 760 whereas the ld. adjudicating authority had accepted a price of US $ 790. He submitted that thus the price list has not been accepted by the ld. adjudicating authority though a lot of emphasis was laid that the price list was recovered and the price list recovered showed the price of the goods. He submitted that quantity discount was given and because of this quantity discount, unit price of US $ 710 was the correct price even if a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . DR submitted that no evidence of negotiations has been produced and, therefore, the lower authority has rightly rejected this contention of the Appellant. 11. Regarding the pencil entries found in the price lists of M/s. Pegasus, the ld. JDR submitted that in all these cases wherever invoices have been cited, the price found in the invoices are more than the printed prices in the corresponding items by about 20%; that these are the prices at which the goods have been offered for sale, duly supported by proforma invoices as well as the actual invoices during the relevant period of importation. 12. In regard to valuation under Section 14(1)(a), the ld. JDR submitted that this section provides `the value of the goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for sale or offer for sale . The ld. DR submitted that the price as reflected in the price list are the net prices at which the goods are offered for sale to the dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that these invoices pertained to import of incomplete machines without motor, without table, without stand and controller whereas the case before us was for complete machine. The ld. DR also submitted that the Appellant could not produce any evidence to show that the invoices covered import of complete machines. 16. In regard to the imports from M/s. Juki (Hongkong) Limited, it was pleaded that the Export Houses and Trading Houses are being extended the benefit of special discount of 15% which was not available for others. 17. The ld. DR submits that u/s 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, valuation is done on the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale. He submitted that this issue is not covered by the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act. Regarding the applicability of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and Section 14 of the Customs Act, it was pointed out by the ld. DR that there was vital difference between the two Acts; that the Central Excise Act recognises different classes of buyers not being related persons; such recognition is not there in Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. 18. The ld. DR submitted that having regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
