9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facility of issue of L.A. in respect of licences issued for stock and sale was withdrawn and in the Policy of April to March, 1984 and as such the licence produced did not appear to be valid for the goods imported. On this ground the Customs considered that the goods were liable to confiscation. Further grounds disclosed by the Customs were that the goods which were N.G.K. Spark Plugs appearing to have been imported from a trading company and not from manufacturers. The party did not produce the manufacturer s invoice issued to M/s. Sankyo Trading Co. Ltd., Japan or the manufacturer s price list to support the correctness of the price declared by the appellants. The Customs observed that the declared price in the Bill of Entry and Invoice was 45 Yen per piece, CIF Bombay. It was stated that the Department was in possession of the quotation from the manufacturer M/s. N.G.K. Spark Plug Company Ltd., indicating the price of spark plug at US $ 0.48 per piece. On this ground the Customs stated in the show cause notice that the price quoted by the trading company cannot be less than the price quoted by the manufacturers. Therefore, the declaration appeared to be low as compared with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her rates in respect of same kind and quality imports were prevailing in the year 1981 and normally the trend is that international prices of such precision articles were upward. Therefore, the prices in 1983 should be at least equal to if not higher than 1981 prices. As the importer did not submit any evidence against this position, it was not possible to accept the view that the price of such goods has come down in recent years; (iii) The Custom House has produced a catalogue of the manufacturers showing the price of N.G.K. Spark Plugs at 50 Cents for standard type and 40 Cents (also for standard type, as stated in the Collector s order). The appellants objection to this catalogue was not accepted as the appellants did not get the matter verified by the manufacturers of the plugs; (iv) The manufacturers did not commit anywhere that they were granted any discount to this lot under importation. In fact, the price list No. 502/83 of the trading agency M/s. Sankyo Trading Co. Ltd., quoted both the varieties as spark plugs (BP 5HS and BP 4HS) at 45 Yen per piece. On these grounds the Additional Collector ordered that the imported goods to be valued @ 40 Cents per piece. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... servations the Collector arrogated to himself the role of financial expert which he was not. According to their submission the Collector s expressions consisted of conjectures not supported by the evidence of catalogues and price lists, none of which were produced, They also cited AIR 1961 Cal. 195 (Josoda Jiban Saha v. S.K. Chatterjee) in support of their argument that time of corporation must be given a reasonable construction and must be considered in relation to the particular facts of any given case. 8. The learned Representative for the respondent in reply reiterated the view of the Collector with regard to licence becoming invalid for the importation of the goods. Opposing the arguments of the appellants, he submitted that spark plugs were not seasonal products and there was no question of their price rising or falling. Referring to the evidence produced by the Department in the shape of invoice of M/s. Anand Motors, the learned Representative argued that this invoice was a basic document. While agreeing that it was not a contemporaneous record, he submitted that the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that prices fell after the importation by M/s. Anand Motors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e immaterial as another letter of authority was issued on 10-4-1983. 14. The learned Consultant for the appellants drew our attention to the Public Notice No. 9, dated 31-3-1983 issued by the C.C.I. and E. wherein it was mentioned that the Import and Export Policy for April, 1983 - March, 1984 will be announced on 15-4-1983. Paras 2 and 5 of this note, which are of interest, are reproduced below : 2. Till the announcement of the import policy for 1983-84, import applications received up to 31st March, 1983, and which are pending on 1-4-1983, will be dealt with under the policy for 1982-83. 5. Persons who need to import any requirements under extraordinary circumstances during the period from 1st April, 1983 to 14th April, 1983 may apply to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi. Their requests will be considered on merits. 15. It has not been shown to us that there is anything in this notification or in the policy for AM-84, to justify a finding that the provisions of the policy came into effect from 1st April, 1983. It is clear that the Public Notice cited above covered the period from 1st April till 14th April and the new policy came into effect fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of the appellants importation. The Collector concedes that there was a time gap between the importation of M/s. Anand Motors which was on 22-8-1981 and that of the importers which was on 6-10-1983. The Collector s argument is that the prices of spark plugs have not fallen during this period. His further reasoning is that the prices at which an agent can sell cannot be less than the prices at which the manufacturer himself can sell. 19. The appellants have submitted that the Collector assumed the role of a financial expert without justification. The learned Departmental Representative argued before us that spark plugs are not seasonal products and there is no reason to believe that there was fall in prices between the two dates. He said that the appellants did not prove that there was any such fall. 20. We have considered all these arguments. We see force in the appellants submission that Section 14 refers to time and place of importation and in the instant case comparing the value of their goods imported in October, 1983 with goods imported in 1981, is not correct. We have considered the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant. These consisted of AIR 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
