9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rumkin Impex, Singapore. On submission of the Bill of Entry dated 21-7-1994 (Ext. P2), duty was assessed at Rs. 1,80,411/- on the basis of the trans- action value and the consignment was cleared. In respect of the next consignment of identical goods, which is the consignment in question, exported by M/s. Drumkin Impex as per the purchase order of the petitioner (Ext. P3) which arrived at the Cochin Port, the petitioner filed the Bill of Entry (Ext. P5) on 14-9-1994. An open examination was conducted in which the entire consignment was examined in detail. A copy of the invoice issued by M/s. Drumkin Impex, a copy of the purchase order and all other relevant documents were produced and ultimately the goods were cleared. There is also an official end- orsement as "passed out of custom charge" under the signature of the competent officer dated 20-9-1994. The legitimate customs duty of Rs. 3,66,769/- was paid and the goods were released. Thereafter, the goods were taken out of the customs area and while they were being loaded in a vehicle for transportation, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short, DRI) prevented removal of the goods on the ground that the DRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion/penalty proceedings under the Customs Act. 5.The Commissioner of Customs held that the proforma invoice of M/s. Copy Kits Trading Co. Ltd., Singapore is for the reconditioned components of photocopier machines model NP 270 and it was issued to another trader, namely, M/s. International Trading Business Machines, Madras. The prices indicated in the proforma invoice are the prices of identical goods. Since the identical goods are being sold at Singapore at a much higher price, the declared value appears to be a manipulated price and is not the correct price. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1990 (49) E.L.T. 640], the Commissioner of Customs held that there is no bar against relying on quotations for the purpose of increasing the assessable value if the declared value is found to be a manipulated one. Since the proforma invoice of M/s. Copy Kits Trading Co., is for identical goods and since it is issued from Singapore from where the imported goods also have been despatched, there is every justification to enhance the value on the basis of this quotation. The identical nature of the goods was proved by an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industries, New Delhi and were found to be photocopier parts of Cannon NP 270/305 models. These parts can be assembled into photocopiers. All the components required for assembling the said models are available in the said cases. The goods examined by him were those covered by the Bill of Entry No. 3326, dated 14-9-1994. But the Commissioner without ascertaining the credentials of Shri Gopalakrishnan accepted his version as true. It is evident from the impugned order that the petitioner had requested the Commissioner to give him an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Gopalakrishnan before his opinion was accepted. Admittedly, no such opportunity was given to him. There is nothing on record to show as to on what basis Shri Gopalakrishnan claims to be an expert on photocopier machines. He seems to be an employee doing some repair works of photocopiers of various models of Cannon Company in a retail shop called Copy Tech, Lissy Junction, Ernakulam. No document, much less any reliable evidence, has been produced to show that Shri Gopalakrishnan has the requisite qualification and experience to be designated as an expert in the field. As such, it is difficult to believe that he is a compe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of mere quotations or offers. There must be evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher value. In Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1990 (49) E.L.T. 640], the company which imported components and consumables for plain paper copiers had declared the value of the consignments to be Rs. 99,612/- under the Bill of Entry and invoice. But, a different value of similar goods was shown in the quotations of the same supplier. The quotations were produced by the company itself. In that context, it was held that the company cannot dispute the correctness of the prices in the quotations. The petitioner has produced no other material to show that the value mentioned in the invoices was the correct market value of goods imported at the relevant time. There was, therefore, nothing wrong if value for the purpose of customs duty is determined on the basis of quotations, specially when the supplier has been the authorised agent of the manufacturer and the prices given in the quotations were based on the prices given by the manufacturer. Thus, there cannot be a question of supplying the components on a lesser price than given by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
