9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (5) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndependent machine and is not integral part of JAPAX NC Wire Cut Electrical Discharge Machine Model LS-500. The lower autho rity has therefore correctly classified u/i 84.51/55(2). The appeal therefore fails on both the counts. The orders passed by the Lower Authority are correct in law and maintainable. I, therefore reject the appeal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants imported JAPAX AC Electric Discharge Cutting Machine Model LS-500 with moving wire electrode and JAPT 2A/E Numerical Path Control along with attachment and accessories. They sought clearance of these items under Bill of Entry No. 499/89 indicating the value as J. Yen 25,369,268 CIF. The Department found that similar machines imported from the same f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Honda and others; that the lower authorities had erred in adopting the value of machines from the case of M/s. Vidyut Metalics instead of accepting the value shown in the invoice of the supplier in the case of the appellants; that Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not bar negotiation of the price with the exporters; that the price shown in the invoice in the instant case was a negotiated price; that the term used in Section 14 was that ordinarily sold or offered for sale at the place and time of importation; that this implies a series of importation at the price at which the Customs Authorities may enhance the price; that in the present case the lower authorities have relied upon an isolated import; that Section 14 of the Customs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 84.45/48; that the lower authorities misinterpreted the catalogue in holding that this machine could be used with other machines also; that the correct meaning of the words used in the catalogue was that one JAPT 2A/E system could be used with as many as 10 JAPAX wire cutting machines. Having regard to this view the ld. Consultant submitted that these two machines merit classification in the same Chapter headings as JAPAX i.e. under Heading 84.45/48. 5. Shri K.K. Jha, the ld. SDR appearing for the respondents submitted that on the question of valuation the appellants have agitated that there was a special price negotiated by the importers; that it is not a special price that is acceptable under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation. 8. The importers imported JAPAX Wire Cutting Machine along with JAPT 2A/E and claimed the assessment of both the items under Heading 84.45/48. In support of their contention they claimed that JAPT 2A/E was not an independent machine and could not be operated without JAPAX NC. However, the department was of the view that JAPT 2A/E is a machine which can be used with other machines also and therefore, was a general purpose machine was classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.51/55(2). 9. On perusing the catalogue we find that it has clearly been stated that it can also be adopted for generating punched paper, NC Tapes for Systems other than JAPAX NC system. The JAPT 2A/E system eliminates the need for a highly specialised, skilled NC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onda and others. It was contended by the appellant that without considering these facts lower authorities simply accepted the value of contemporaneous import and enhanced the price on that basis. It was pleaded that the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Parle Exports fully covered their case as also that the facts in the two cases were identical. We find that Hon ble Bombay High Court in Paras 6 and 7 had dealt with similar facts. The paras are reproduced below :- 6. While there is no quarrel with regard to the submission made by Mr. Sethna, I cannot forget the fact that in the present case the department has not been able to show as to what was the market price in respect of these machines. On the other hand the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, there is no justification whatsoever for the department to think that the value of importation was much more than what was indicated under the said import licence. In fact the department s attention was drawn to a case of this High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 284 (Bom.) in which it is expressly stated that the department ought to have taken the actual price as shown in the invoice and they could not have taken into account the import value for the purpose of debiting the licence. However, the department would not allow the said judgment. In my view, the department s action in this behalf is expressly contrary to the law as laid down by this Court in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
