9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- in lieu of confiscation. He also ordered -enhancement of assessable value to 446.5 per M.T. FOB as against the declared value of US $ 550 per M.T. GIF. The Additional Collector further imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellants imported the above consignment of copper Ash/Dross for which they filed a Bill of Entry dated 30-12-1988. The value of the consignment was declared at Rs. 4,36,981/- based on the Invoice value in US $ under Invoice No. 6288 dated 2-11-1988 raised by M/s. Simi Enterprises, USA. The unit price was declared at US $ 550 M.T. GIF as per Invoice. On import the goods were examined and sample therefrom subjected to laboratory test and as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He relied upon the contracts entered with different suppliers as Charney Ltd. USA where all the Invoices showed contract number and the Invoice number separately. The Additional Collector further found that the supplier in this case did not allot any contract number but merely allotted an Invoice number in a chronological order, and going by the chronology of the Invoice dates, the contract for the present import could not have been in August, 1988. Another point was there was no evidence of the contract copy having been sent and returned by the appellants. Therefore, he held that the particular contract for the present import No. 6288 dated 4-8-1988 was not valid, and enhanced the price to that higher one prevailing in September 1988. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance or that the importer or the supplier were related persons. The learned counsel cited and relied upon the case law reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 65 of the Tribunal in the case of Janta Traders v. Collector of Customs, Bombay wherein the Tribunal held that under-valuation cannot be held to be proved if the department fails to produce evidence of comparable value of identical goods. Reliance was also placed in the Tribunal's decision in the case of Orient Enterprises v. Collector of Customs, Cochin, 1986 (23) E.L.T. 507 wherein the Tribunal held that the charge of under-invoicing must be supported by evidence by prices of contemporaneous imports of such or like goods. Further, it was pointed out that the transactions with the suppliers wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor is not well-founded because admittedly there is a contract dated 4-8-1988 signed by the supplier and the appellants herein for the supply of Copper Ash/Dross at the price as per the Invoice. Merely because there is no evidence that the duplicate of the contract had been signed and returned to the supplier, that itself would not be a ground, in our view, to discredit and disbelieve the contents of the contract itself. We further find that in another case of import from the same supplier effected by M/s. Ampex Trading Co. Bombay adjudicated by the Addl. Collector in his Order No. S/8/110/89-SIB/165/88, dated 4-7-1989, the import was in pursuance of a contract No. 6297 of 7-8-1988 where the Addl. Collector had accepted the validity of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same goods. In the circumstances, therefore, merely based on the prices published in Metal Bulletin, which itself declares in the preamble "the following table represents our evaluation of current market values in the U.K.......Owing to the nature of scrap market it is impossible to quote precise prices and it is important that the indication should be read in conjunction with the relevant market comment" and without any supporting evidence of contemporaneous import, the value so determined will not be in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In this view of the matter, therefore, the Addl. Collector's order is not maintainable. It is set aside and the appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
