9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leared the consignment as per the procedure of the customs authorities. The material arrived at India in the Port of Bombay on or about February 20, 1970 and April 25, 1970, and the necessary bills of entry in connection therewith were filed by the petitioners and import duty paid on the basis of value shown in the said bills of entry. The duty paid by the petitioners was on the basis of provisional assessment made on the strength of invoice value. Certain correspondence took place between the petitioners and the Appraising Officer, Special Valuation Branch, Bombay, in respect of value of the imported goods and ultimately on April 11, 1972, the Assistant Collector of Customs informed the petitioners that he proposes to load the ex-works inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Collector before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. Along with the appeal memo, which was presented on September 23, 1972, the petitioners produced a letter dated August 18, 1972 from the Auditors of the Collaborators clarifying that the invoice price includes the normal profit as that is the normal practice of trade. The petitioners on August 28, 1973, produced order acknowledgment of the collaborators placed with manufacturers and claimed that the said acknowledgment would show that there is a difference between the price charged to the collaborators and charged by the collaborators to the petitioners, and such difference would reflect the marginal profit. The appellate authority by its order dated October 25, 1973, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barred in view of provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, and on that count the notice is required to be struck down. In my judgment, there is no merit in any of the contentions urged by the learned Counsel. 4. The main grievance of Shri Taleyarkhan is that the appellate authority ignored the clarification submitted by the Auditors on August 20, 1972 and relied solely upon the certificate issued by the auditors on July 19,1971. The learned Counsel did not dispute that the certificate of auditors issued on July 19, 1971 specifically indicates that the collaborators have not charged any marginal profit. I have also perused the original certificate and it leaves no manner of doubt that the auditor has specifically stated that the profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rification does not refer to the earlier certificate issued by the auditors on July 19, 1977. There is also an intrinsic evidence to indicate that the clarification is not with reference to the earlier certificate. In the clarification the cost of manufacture is mentioned as Japanese Yen 17,507,885, while in the certificate dated July 19, 1971 the price referred is 23,050,560. It is difficult to conclude that the clarification is in respect of the earlier certificate, but even otherwise no weight can be attached to a clarification which was secured after the date of order passed by the Assistant Collector. The appellate authority was perfectly justified in holding that it would not be proper to refer to the clarification when the earlier ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers include the profit margin. The petitioners' submission that the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities suffer from serious infirmities because of failure to consider the clarification and acknowledgment is devoid of any merit and deserves to be repelled. 7. Shri Taleyarkhan then submitted that the authorities below were in error in loading the invoice value by 15 per cent. To appreciate the submission of the learned Counsel, it is necessary to make reference to the provisions of Section 14(b) of the Act. The Section inter alia provides that where a duty is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of the goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold. Section 14(b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. In these circumstances, it is not open for the petitioners to complain that the loading of value by 15 per cent. was arbitrary. In my judgment, due to the failure of the petitioners to submit any evidence, the officer was required to resort to the provisions of Rule 8 and no fault can be found for the course adopted by him. In my judgment, the orders passed by the three authorities below are in accordance with law and requires no interference. 9. Shri Taleyarkhan then urges that the demand notice served by the Assistant Collector of Customs on April 19, 1977 was barred by limitation as provided under section 28 of the Act. The submission proceeded on the basis that there was final assessment on July 5, 1972 and the notice under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
