9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dast Dominant 725P and Two Colour Offset Printing Machine) and filed bill of entry dated 22-2-1991 through Customs House Agent, M/s. While and Company, Mumbai, seeking clearance of those goods which were supplied to them by M/s. Kovo Foreign Trade Corporation, Praha, Czechoslovakia, vide invoice dated 21-12-1990 for C F value of Rs. 8,86,623/-. The respondents showed Rs. 44,778/- in that bill of entry as local agent s commission. They also along with the bill of entry submitted a copy of the order dated 4-9-1990 placed by them on M/s. J. Mahabeer Co. Pvt. Ltd. for import of the said goods, as on the imported goods they were to pay Rs. 1,79,115/- to that company towards commission, installation and technical advice. The break up of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act read with Rule 9(1)(i) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and also ordered the confiscation of the goods. However, since the goods were not available for confiscation having been already released, the adjudicating authority directed that the assessment be finalized accordingly and also demanded Rs. 50,000/- as fine from the respondents. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondents and of Rs. 10,000/- on M/s. J. Mahabeer Co. Pvt. Ltd. (not appellants before us). That order of the adjudicating authority dated 29-4-1994 has been reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order on the ground that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But there is no material on the record to support this bifurcation of the charges. No letter in this regard issued by the supplier to its local indenting agent, M/s. J. Mahabeer Co. Pvt. Ltd. separately sent along with the goods and the invoice etc. was produced by the respondents along with the bill of entry. Even at any later stage, the respondents had not placed on record any letter to that effect from the supplier that out of the total 20%, 5% were only chargeable as commission fee while others as installation and technical advice charges, from the respondents by their local indenting agents. 5. Even the local indenting agent, M/s. J. Mahabeer Co. Pvt. Ltd., has not supported this plea of the respondents that only 5% was paid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 20% charges were compulsorily given by them to the indenting agent and they had come to an understanding with the indenting agent that 15% would be charged towards the installation and technical advice and for these reasons they did not include the same in the application submitted by them for taking the licence. No material evidence has been brought by the respondents to corroborate this plea and as such their bald version for lack of any corroborative evidence, should not have been accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) for reversing the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority. 6. The break up of 20% of the CIF value of the goods which the respondents paid to M/s. J. Mahabeer Co. Pvt. Ltd., in fact, had been prepared by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
