9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioners had imported spare parts of watches from M/s. Sedim Establishment, Vaduz, Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as "the said Swiss Company"). The said Swiss Company has a sister concern by name of Sedim France (hereinafter referred to as "the said French Company"). There is collaboration between the said Indian Company and the said French Company since the year 1961 and under this agreement the said Indian Company manufactures watches in India in collaboration with the said French Company. The parts required for the manufacture of such watches are supplied by the said French Company to the said Indian Company. It appears that the watches and parts supplied by the said French Company are of a Company in France which manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng a loss of Rs. 97,031/- in duty. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to explain as to why penal action be not taken against him under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the goods be not confiscated under Section 111 of the Act. The reason given in the said Notice was that the valuation in the invoice of the goods had been shown at a lower price and the price should have been calculated with an addition of 37.5 per cent, as according to the Department the real price of the spare parts was not what the petitioner had stated in the invoice but it was much higher. The Customs Department, in this connection, relied on the price list, which they got from the "Groupement". The price relied upon by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Catalogue of 1967 as given by the Groupement. As against this, an appeal was preferred to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. That appeal was also rejected by an order passed on 23rd July 1975. Thereafter a revision application was filed by the petitioner, which was also rejected by the order of the Government dated 18th November 1978. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the said decision of the respondents. 7. In this connection, the provisions of the Act relating to valuation of goods, for the purpose of assessment, are as follows : x x x x x x x 8. Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 have been also framed in this behalf and the relevant Rules are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the said Swiss Company, the Department had always accepted the said invoices and they had never questioned. Therefore, the valuation should not have been calculated under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Mr. Rana submitted that the respondents having come to a wrong conclusion that the valuation would not be calculated either under Rule 3(a), 3(b) or 3(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 they purported to hold that the valuation could be calculated only under Rule 3(d). Here again, Mr. Rana submitted that the respondents had no price list of comparable goods produced or manufactured by the person who has produced or manufactured the goods to be assessed and which are ordinarily sold or offered for sale under competitive conditions to buye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Chemicals Limited) on the other hand were "related persons" within the meaning of the definition of that term contained in sub-section (c) of sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the amended Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the assessable value of the dyes manufactured by the assessee was, therefore, liable to be calculated on the basis of the price at which Atul Products Limited sold the dyes to the dealers and the consumers. This view was negatived by the Court. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has only 5 per cent shareholding in the said Indian Company which has again nothing to do with the import of the parts and, therefore, in my opinion the view taken by the Customs Department cannot be sustained at all. 12. Mr. Shring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
