9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pc. 2. Horn (AS002C) 12 V 1000 pcs. S$ 1.10/ pc. 3. Horn (LS-6-5) 12-V 500 sets S$ 3.75/ set 4. Light (P 838) 1500 pcs. S$ 1.35/ pc. 5. Light (P 6017) 1000 pcs. S$ 1.10/ pc. 6. Stickers (Ex-0060) 500 sets S$ 0.60/ set. 7. Katana Stripes (stickers of different models). 7246 pcs. S$ 0.10 to 0.40/ pc. Investigation revealed that importation of similar items has been noticed at Calcutta port and according to information obtained from M/s. Sim Khee Mang Agencies, Singapore based on such invoices the party had misdeclared the price of Item Nos. 1, 4 5 above. The prices noticed for identical goods of Taiwan origin in those invoices were S$ 2.00/ pc, S$ 3.50/ pc and S$ 3.00/ pc against the declared price of S$ 0.90/ pc, S$ 1.35/ pc and S$ 1.10/ pc for Item Nos. 1, 4 5 respectively. Further on market enquiry, it was ascertained that Item No. 3, i.e. Horn (LS-6-5) 12V, Item No. 6 (Sticker) and Item No. 7 (Katana stripes sticker of different models) are being sold at a retail price of Rs. 350.00, Rs. 75.00 and Rs. 30.00. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed the clearance of the goods under Appendix 3, Part A of the Policy 1988-91 under the clause of flexibility. The Horns bearing Nos. AS-002, AS-002C and LS-6-5 as well as the lights appear to be finished electronic consumer items (Horn has clearly been mentioned as electronic) and thus the goods fall under Serial No. 145 of the Appendix 2, Part B of the Policy 1988-91. Similarly, the stickers and Katana Stripes are luxury consumer goods falling under Serial No. 145 of Appendix-2, Part B ibid. Therefore, the licence for Appendix-3, Part A produced by the importer for the items above cannot be accepted. In absence of a valid licence(s) the import of the goods is unauthorised in terms of Section 3(2) of the Import Export (Control) Act, 1947 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Additional Collector who adjudicated the proceedings after considering the reply defence and contentions of the party confirmed the charges and ordered for confiscation of the entire consignment under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, he gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the Importer f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Reshamsingh Brothers, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T. 171 (T) = 1989 (21) E.C.R. 172 on this issue. 4. On the point of valuation it was urged that invoice value is the transaction value as the transaction was genuine and at arm s length. Hence question of determining the value of the imported goods based on other invoice prices does not arise as the transaction was purely commercial one and as there is no iota of evidence to show that there was mutuality of interest or excess consideration has been passed on to the supplier, nor is allegation in the show cause notice to that effect. Sri Laxmikumaran said that Department erred in replying upon the isolated transaction as against series of clearances allowed by the Customs authorities of identical items at identical prices at the material time. He contended that value cannot be based on extraneous evidence in the absence of positive proof of under-valuation either with clandestine dealing or of clandestine remittance, particularly after amendment of Section 14 of the Customs Act. 5. Refuting the arguments Sri Satish Kumar, learned D.R. said that the goods in question are consumer goods as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that clandestine dealing or of clandestine remittance, we do not find any justification in determining the value based on other invoices. 7. In the result, we set aside the impugned order, and accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. 8. [Assent per : S.V. Maruthi, Member (J)]. - I agree with the views expressed by Brother Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J) that the department is not justified in holding that the goods are not covered by a valid import licence. 9. As regards the valuation I agree with him for different reasons recorded below. The proposal in the show cause notice is to enhance the value of Horn (AS-002) 12V; Light (P838), Light (H6017) from the declared value of Singapore $ 0.90/per piece, Singapore $ 1.35 per piece; Singapore $ 1.10 per piece to Singapore $ 2.00; Singapore $ 3.50 per piece; Singapore $ 3.00 respectively and in respect of Horn (L-5-6-5) 12 V; Stickers (Ex 0066) Katna Strips (stickers of different models) from the declared value of Singapore $ 3.75 per set; Singapore $ 0.60 per set; Singapore $ 0.10 per set to Rs. 350; Rs. 750; Rs. 30 respectively. The proposal is based on the computer print out and the invoice No. 225/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
