9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced any other material on record to show that the value mentioned in the invoices was the correct market value of the goods imported at the relevant time. The adjudicating authority in these circumstances was perfectly justified in taking the prices mentioned in the quotations as a basis for determining the correct value of the imported goods. Fact that the trade representative of USSR in his letter dated January 20,1987 has asked the appellant not to divulge the specially quoted price to any other party in India, in itself indicates that the price offered to the appellant was a special price and not the ordinary price of such goods in the course of international trade. The price in the ordinary course of international trade has been indicated in the price list published by the manufacturers in USSR. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal - Decided against Assessee. - APPEAL No. C/974 & 975/07 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2015 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri. K.K. Anand, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri D.K. Sinha, Asst. Comm. (AR) ORDER Per: Raju 1. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deliver MSAS or other? 2) Is it all right to present our documents to our banker at full invoice value yen 9,30,000? 3) Please instruct about invoice etc. today Another document recovered (Appendix XI to SCN) contained following remarks: Re-Z-ONE-D Price list: We apologize for delay, the draft was already completed and we are just thinking how e can fix the prices. The price of our Hitachi Affiliated Company in USA is as follows: Z- ONE-D Dealer Price List Price US $ 13,500 US$ 19,000 Annexure XIII to the SCN was a document showing Hitachi price list and inventory of appellants: 3. Shri Nitin Shah, Managing Director of the appellants informed that M/s..Sansho Co. Ltd., are authorised export agents of M/s.Hitachi Denshi Ltd. In order to promote sales they called for demonstration of camera for exhibition to be held at Worli Trade Centre between 2nd and 4th November, 1995. He claimed that the low price was on account of negotiations and the fact that new product was being introduced in the market. On the basis of scrutiny of these documents it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 4 of CVR, 1988. It was based on the invoices raised by M/s.Sansho co. Ltd., Japan, who in turn were authorised agents of the manufacturers. For example, the total per unit price for complete Hitachi Z-ONE-D Camera System is indicated as Japanese Yen 955000 FOB, Japan in both the Price Lists dated 6/2/95 and 18/12/95 of M/s.Hitachi Denshi Ltd. Against this, it was alleged that invoice Nos.8098 dated 18/10/95 and 8557 dated 06/01/97 appended with Bills of Entry No.01233 dated 28/10/1995, 005446 dated 13/01/97 show the price of identical goods at Japanese Yen 122910 per unit, FOB, Japan and Japanese Yen 90,000 per unit FOB, Japan respectively. Similarly, it was alleged that the price of RU-Z1 Remote Control Unit is indicated as Japanese Yen 329000 per unit, FOB Japan in both the Price Lists of manufacturer whereas the invoice raised by M/s.Sansho Co. Ltd., indicate the price of RU-Z! as only Japanese Yen 42,350 FOB Japan. Accordingly, the assessable value was sought to be determined on the basis of manufacturer s (M/s.Hitachi Denshi Ltd.) Price Lists dated 6/2/95 and 18/12/95. It was alleged that the supplier, M/s.Sansho Co.Ltd., are authorized Export Agent of the manufactur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of rejecting the price declared by them. For this they relied on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Vs. CC - 2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC). In the said decision, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: 22. In the case before us, it is not alleged? that the appellant has mis-declared the price actually paid. Nor was there a mis-description of the goods imported as was the case in Padia Sales Corporation. It is also not the respondent's case that the particular import fell within any of the situations enumerated in Rule 4(2). No reason has been given by the Assistant Collector for rejecting the transaction value under Rule 4(1) except the price list of vendor. In doing so, the Assistant Collector not only ignored Rule 4(2) but also acted on the basis of the vendor's price list as if a price list is invariably proof of the transaction value. This was erroneous and could not be a reason by itself to reject the transaction value. A discount is a commercially acceptable measure, which may be resorted to by a vendor for a variety of reasons including stock clearance. A price list is really no more than a general quotation. It does not preclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rify that it is still open to the Department based on evidence, to show that the declared price is not the price at which like goods are sold or offered for sale ordinarily, which words occur in Section 14(1). Lastly, it is important to note that in the above decision of this Court in Eicher Tractors (supra) this Court has held that the Department has to proceed sequentially under Rules 5, 6 onwards and it is not open to the Department to invoke Rule 8 without sequentially complying with Rules 5, 6 and 7 even in cases where the transaction value is to be rejected under Rule 4. In the present case, the show cause notice indicates that the Department had invoked Rule 8 without complying with the earlier rules. 4.2 It was argued that prices declared in price list are not final prices. There are discounts offered to customers like quantity discounts, etc. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs CC - 1999 (98) ELT 3 has observed as under: 13. In the present case the only evidence that was? adduced by Revenue in support of the charge of under-valuation is the price list No. 8102, dated February 15, 1981 which was found during the course of search in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is a ground of appeal in the appeal memo. He argued that there was an unholy alliance between M/s.Sansho Co. Ltd., and the appellant and documentation was being done in consultation. The supply price to BEL, Doordarshan and Ministry of Broadcasting was planned to be rigged in consultation. Thus, the documentation between them cannot be relied. He argued that the price declared for the assessment amounted to almost 80-85% discount over the list price. In any case even if the appellant version is believable it was not available to all person and was in consideration of the promotion of the sale by exhibition of such camera in India. He also relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. - 1990 (49) ELT 640 (SC). In the said decision the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: 10. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Section 14 of the Act provides for valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment. Section 14(1) which is relevant for our purposes reads as under : Valuation of goods for purposes of assessment: (1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative of the USSR in India in his letter dated January 20,1987, addressed to the appellant-Corporation stated Please, note that these prices are specially quoted for you and therefore the same are not to be divulged to any other party in India . Apart from that the printed price list issued by the manufacturers specifically quotes the value of the imported bearings at ₹ 1,79,631.% per piece. The Collector and the Tribunal have primarily based their findings on these two documents. 5. Section 14 of the Act provides that the value for the purpose of assessment would be :- (a) the ordinary price at which the goods are sold or offered for sale; (b) price for delivery at time and place of importation; (c) price in the ordinary course of international trade between the unrelated buyers. 6. The fact that the trade representative of USSR in his letter dated January 20,1987 has asked the appellant not to divulge the specially quoted price to any other party in India, in itself indicates that the price offered to the appellant was a special price and not the ordinary price of such goods in the course of international trade. The price in the ordinary course of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
