9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Mis-declaration of value. 2. Non-coverage of goods under OGL or licenses submitted. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Mis-declaration of Value: The appellants, M/s. Unisef Electronics India Ltd., imported kits of Cassette Tape Recorders Model AF 52 and Cassette Tape Player Model Z-108. The declared value of the goods was disputed by the revenue authorities, who alleged undervaluation. The adjudicating authority adopted values based on an invoice from M/s. Victory Co., Hongkong, which priced the models at Hongkong $120 and $112 respectively. After a 10% discount for CKD (completely knocked down) parts, the prices were adjusted to Hongkong $108 and $100.8, equivalent to Rs. 167.96 and Rs. 156.77 respectively. The declared values by the appellants were significantly lower at 1385 Japanese yen (Rs. 69.88) for AF-52 and 1220 Japanese yen (Rs. 61.55) for Z-108. The adjudicating authority noted that the prices in Japan and Hongkong were not comparable due to additional freight and handling charges. The Department did not provide contemporaneous import records to support their valuation, whereas the appellants referred to similar imports at the declared prices. The adjudicating authority allowed a reduction of 25% from the Hongkong prices, arriving at CIF values of Rs. 130.64 for AF-52 and Rs. 122.88 for Z-108. The Tribunal found that the invoice from Hongkong should not determine the value for goods imported from Japan due to freight and other expenses. It was decided that a 35% deduction should be allowed from the assessable value instead of 25%. Hence, the values for AF-52 and Z-108 were adjusted to Hongkong $78 and $72.86 respectively. 2. Non-coverage of Goods under OGL or Licenses Submitted: The appellants claimed clearance under OGL in the Bill of Entry but later submitted License No. 1960167 dated 11-4-1984 during adjudication. The revenue authorities argued that the goods were imported in CKD condition and included sub-assemblies and components covered by Appendix 3A of AM 85-88 Policy, requiring a specific import license. The Additional Collector found that TDM and PCBs were covered by the license, but Silicon Diodes and Resistors were not. The license was valid until 30-4-1985, while the goods were shipped on 28-6-1985, beyond the license validity. The appellants referred to Para 209(1) of the Hand Book of Import and Export Procedures 1983-84, which allowed a 60-day grace period for shipment after the license expiry. However, the 1984-85 Policy abolished the grace period. The Tribunal noted that the grace period could not be claimed as a matter of right without applying for it, and no evidence was provided that the appellants applied for the grace period. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were imported in CKD condition and did not fall under OGL. The import license could not be extended to cover the disputed items as it was filed during adjudication and not with the Bill of Entry. However, considering past clearances and the bonafide nature of the import, the Tribunal reduced the fine in lieu of confiscation from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh and the penalty from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 7,500. Conclusion: The Tribunal modified the order by adjusting the assessable values and reducing the fine and penalty, while otherwise rejecting the appeal. The revenue authorities were directed to give consequential effect to the order.
|
