9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the specified items would be covered by para 156(F) of the policy as according to the show cause notice, the items imported were consumer electronic goods and consumer telecommunication equipments covered by 156(1)(2) of the Negative list of imports under the EXIM policy April - March 1992-97 which requires a valid import licence and under para 156(F) only certain specific items were mentioned and that was not exhaustive list covering LNB transformers under import which were used in dish antennas of TV sets and this answer to the description of consumer electronic and telecommunication equipments in the negative list under para 156(1) (2) of the policy and therefore, were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The Collector of Customs has also found that that transaction value under Rule 4 was not applicable in the instant case as there were no details relating to the import price of identical, similar goods and data relating to price at which the said goods were sold in the greatest aggregate quantity in India. Rules 5, 6 7 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 were inapplicable in the present sit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Gardinar U.S. make. The show cause notice further disclosed that the quotation of Cherish Enterprises, Singapore in favour of H.R. Enterprises, Narasingapuram, Chennai 2 and the price of Gardinar LNB was shown at 38 U.S. Dollars. According to the show cause enquiries with Solidaire India showed a price quoted by Gardinar Communications, USA as on 29-6-1993 at the rate of 42 U.S. Dollars per piece for a total number of 1000 pieces. Regarding transformers the quotation by Rangler Private Ltd., Singapore to Kwality Electronics Madras for a different type of Transformer ranged between 7.8 Singapore Dollar and 33 Singapore Dollar per piece. For the above reasons the show cause notice indicated that the consignment imported required a specific licence. The appellant replied to the show cause notice on 31-7-1993 contending inter alia, that the packing list filed along with the Bill of Entry, the country of Origin is clearly indicated as Malaysia and Japan and there is no mis-declaration or suppression with regard to country of origin, that are of the quotation relied by the Department in favour of M/s. H.R. Enterprises, No. 91, Narasingampuram Street, Madras-2, on verification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent. The decision settled by following rulings. 1. 1992 (62) E.L.T. 613 (Tri) - Laxmi Colour Lab. v. Collector of Customs. Telex Message is only a quotation and in the absence of actual imports in pursuance of quotation it is in the nature of offer. In the absence of concluded contracts and actual imports in pursuance of telex quotation. No reliance can be placed. 2. 1993 (67) E.L.T. 512 (Tri) - Sound N Images v. Collector of Customs There being mis-declaration on discription of goods and huge difference in between comparable models of air condensers - quotation offered by one party in Singapore to another party in Singapore relied on by Department not acceptable (para 10). The above decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court reported in 3. 2000 (117) E.L.T. 538 (S.C.) A fax message setting out a quotation by one party in Singapore to another party in Singapore cannot be made basis of valuation of goods of Japanese origin imported into India, particularly so when the importers request for cross-exam. The onus cannot be shifted to the importer. 4. 1993 (68) E.L.T. 156 (Tri.) - Mirah Decor v. Collector of Customs. Quotation relied on by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gapore. Whereas, the examination of the impugned goods and the samples drawn from the consignment show that transformers were of Itachi/Sony of Japan origin and the LNBs were of Gardiner-US make. This showed that the goods imported were not from the manufacturer, but from a Singapore based trading firm. Since the prices at which the goods were supplied by a Singapore based trading firm did not represent the true transaction value under Rule 4 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and the requirement as envisaged under Rule 10 of the said Rules had also not been complied with, inasmuch as the declaration by the importer as envisaged therein has not been fulfilled, the declared value could not be treated as transaction value of the Rule 4 of the above said Rules. Having ruled out application of Rules 5, 6 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, the original authority took recourse to determine the value under Rule 8 ibid. Placing reliance on the quotation prices from different sources and different countries as also the price schedule from the manufacturers themselves, the original authority determined the value under Rule 8 based on adequate data ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired promise. Therefore, quotations will have to be examined with reference as to how and what circumstances those quotations were received. (b) Examining the quotations in the present case, we find that the appellants had relied to the show cause notice dated 31-7-1993 contending that the country of origin was declared as Malaysia and Japan in the packing list said quotations in favour of M/s. H.R. Enterprises No. 91 Narasingampuram Street, Madras-2 and on verification they found there is no such door number available in that street and the quotation could not be therefore, relied upon. This aspect has not been examined and/or commented upon by the learned Collector nor has the Collector offered cross-examination of the parties whose quotations the Collector was relying upon in the proceedings to determine the value. The Supreme Court has very clearly held that quotations without cross-examination cannot be relied upon to establish under valuation [2000 (117) E.L.T. 538] as in the case of Sound Images which is relied upon by us in this connection. In this view of our findings we cannot uphold the Collector s reliance on the quotation price as the law laid down by the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
