9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble High Court, notices were issued and the matter has come up for final hearing today. The appellants were represented by Shri S. Kannan, Ld. JDR and the respondents were represented by Shri M. Ramachandran, Consultant and Shri Raja Kalifulla, Advocate. 2. The short facts for the purpose of determining this case are that the respondents were importers of Mulberry Raw Silk (20/22 Dinear (F) Grade) of Chinese origin from M/s. Dolly (Exports) (Far East) Ltd., Hong Kong, out of which 7 consignments were imported by M/s. Shakun Overseas Ltd., New Delhi, 2 M/s. Siddarth International and 3 by M/s. Grover Overseas (P) Ltd. The imports of Grover Overseas Pvt. Ltd. were of Korean origin in respect of one consignment only. The importers had filed their Bill of Entry along with all the documents to show that the declared price was in terms of the transaction value. However, the said valuation was not accepted and it was rejected without assigning any reasons and arbitrarily enhanced the value of the consignment. The importers paid the enhanced value under protest and the goods were cleared. Thereafter, they preferred 7 appeals before the Collector (Appeals) Madras and the Collector ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of Grade F material in the international market. The order form referred to in the order was alleged to have been raised by one M/s. Jayanand (International) Bombay and there was no evidence to show that the said M/s. Jayanand International, Bombay had actually imported any consignment of Mulberry Raw Silk pursuant to that order. The order form relied upon by the original authority was not at all a sufficient evidence to discharge the onus. (iv) They further stated that the original authority has failed to consider the various documents produced by the importers in support of their invoice value. In the absence of any documents to show contemporaneous imports at Higher rates than the declared value and in the absence of any evidence that the importer had remitted to the supplier any amount clandestinely more than the invoice amount, the declared value had to be accepted. The invoice value reflects the true transaction value of the subject goods and the original authority had no evidence to prove that the invoice value did not reflect the transaction value, hence the invoice value should have been accepted for assessment. The manufacturer's invoice produced by them relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signment to 38.75 US dollars based on the order placed by M/s. The Handicrafts and Handloom Export Corporation, Madras through M/s. Jayanand (International) Bombay to M/s. China National Silk Import and Export Corporation and the undisclosed investigation conducted by special Investigation Branch of the Madras Custom House. Apart from the order form placed by M/s. The Handicrafts and Handloom Corporation, Madras, the lower authority has not indicated any documentary evidence in support of his enhancement. The order form raised by the Handicrafts and Handloom Corporation, Madras is for 3 grades of Mulberry Raw Silk of grades A to 3 A of 20/22 or 19/21 deniers for a value of 38.75/41.40/41.15 US dollars per kg. CIF Madras. The quantity is about 900 kgs. and the order form is dated 18.11.88. As already observed out of the nine consignments involved in the present appeals, seven are `F' grade Raw Silk of 20/22 deniers, one is Raw Silk of 33/37 denier without any grade. The order form relied upon by the lower authority relates to Raw Silk of Grade A to 3 A whereas the consignments under dispute are of other grades. Further, even though the lower authority has indicated the order for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the invoice values should be accepted as the true Transaction Value. The appellants have produced a copy of Invoice raised by M/s. China National Silk Import and Export Corporation dated 18.7.89 to M/s. Dolly Expo (Far East) Ltd. indicating a price of 28 US Dollars per kg C and F for Mulberry Raw Silk in support of their invoice price. They have also produced copy of an invoice to the original authority raised by M/s. China National Silk Import and Export Corporation dated 9.8.88 to M/s. Sowbagya Exports (P) Ltd., Bangalore indicating 28 US dollars per kg CIF as the price for Mulberry Raw Silk of 20/22 Denier for both A grade and B grade. It should be noted that the above invoice is raised by M/s. China National Silk Import and Export Corporation (the so called manufacturer) and the period of shipment is also within 3 months from the date of Order form i.e. 18.11.88 raised by M/s. The Handicrafts and Handloom Export Corporation of India Ltd. which was relied upon by the lower authority. They have also produced copy of another invoice to the original Authority raised by M/s. Amoli Enterprises dated 29.9.88 indicating 29.95 US dollars per kg and 32.69 US dollars per kg CIF for Mulber ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing to the importers. He points out to the further grounds made out wherein it has been stated that since the declared price was much lower than the quotation price and the importers had also not produced substantial evidence such as manufacturer's invoices, letter of credit, etc., therefore valuation as per Rule 5, 6 7 were ruled out in the absence of details and the valuation was done under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price for imported goods) Rules, 1988 for using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on the basis of data available in India. He points out that the grounds stated that transaction value was rejected based on the quotation (or) offer (or) offer for sale is in order. He points out to the grounds and states that the quotation prices can be taken up for rejecting the transaction value. Based on this ground Ld. JDR points out that the procedure adopted by the department is valid and therefore the order of the Commissioner is not legal and proper and hence the same is required to be set aside. 7. Ld. Consultant and Advocate po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 (76) ELT 481 and the judgment rendered in the case of Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector as reported in 1990 (49) ELT - Distinguished. The other judgment distinguished were Padia Sales Corporation Vs. Collector 1993 (66) ELT 35 (SC) and that of Commerce International Vs. Collector 1995 (7) RLT 693 (S.C.) = 1995 (77) ELT 20 (SC). 8. In counter, Ld. DR points out the grounds of appeal and also refers to one unreported judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Michale Consultants Vs. CC, Madras by final Order No. 618/92-A. 9. On a careful consideration of submissions and on a perusal of the order impugned, we are totally satisfied that the Collector (Appeals) has passed a detailed, considered and a speaking order. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order. Initially the department assessed the goods on a higher price without disclosing any evidence to support rejection of the transaction value. The importers paid duty under protest and filed their appeal before the Collector. The Collector remanded the matter with specific direction that the department should disclose the evidence. Such evidence was not disclosed at all and the party's case was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
