TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regarding correctness and truthfulness of the various documents such as Packing List, Invoice etc. submitted alongwith the B/E. The importers, claimed concessional rate of duty on the components of PC/XT as follows :- S.No. Description of goods CIF value declared Rs. Rate of duty Notfn. No. Amount of Duty Rs. L.S.I.C. 2,87,339/- 25% (67/85 dt.17-3-85 71834.75 Connectors 76,623/- -do- 19155.75 PCB, Resistors 67,892/- 50%(basic) 25% (Aux.) (232/83 dated 18-8-83) 35919.00 1.1 Main allegations levelled in the show cause notice against the appellants are :- (i) The appellants claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 67/85 dated 17-3-1985 against a certificate from the Department of Electronics (DOE) Nos. 014 and 049, although these certificates had been actually attached with other bills of entry under process in the Custom House. (ii) Examination of the DOE certificates attached with the bill of entry with the office copy of the certificates available with the DOE revealed that there was substantial extrapolation/interpolation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation 74/85 dated 17-3-1985 as amended. (v) The appellants have submitted forged and locally prepared copies of invoice and packing list alongwith the instant Bill of Entry No. 7058 dated 7-2-1986. In the original copy of the invoice and the packing list (enclosed as Annexure IV to the show cause notice) the description of the goods was quite different from what was given in the importers copy of the invoice and packing list (enclosed as Annexure III to the show cause notice) submitted alongwith the instant bill of entry. The details of the values given for individual item as seen from the true copy of the invoice No. PC 741062 dated 17-10-1985 (meant for Bill of Entry No. 50872 dated 5-11-1985 mentioned supra) for components for PC/XT are also very different from the values of the individual items given in the importers copy, submitted with the instant Bill of Entry No. 7058 dated 7-2-1986 e.g. the values of the so called LSICs and connectors have been declared to be US $ 150.00 and US $ 40.00 respectively whereas the value of the same came to only US $ 107.35 for 190 pcs. of LSI and US $ 23.60 for 91 pcs. of connectors. These values have been deliberately enhanced as the impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /XT, these components did not fall under OGL and were, therefore, classifiable under various sub-headings of Appendix 3A of the ITC Policy. (ii) On comparison of the DOE certificates Nos. 014/85 dated 24-4-1985 and 049/85 dated 24-5-1985 with the office copies of the same collected from the DOE, the adjudicating authority held that the appellants have forged/extrapolated in their own copy such that even ordinary ICs/SSICs/MSICs have been included in their own copy of the certificate and the quantities of the same have also been extrapolated. Thus, he has held that a total number of more than 8 lacs pcs. of Integrated Circuits (1C) other than LSIS have been added on the certificate by the importers/appellants. In the instant case the Appellants paid a total Customs duty of Rs.1,66,909.50 vide T.R.6-Challan No. 86 under the Self Assessment Procedure laid down under Public Notice No. 3/84 by the Collector of Customs. It is also found that the invoice and the packing list submitted by the appellants are forged and locally prepared. The original copy of the same collected from the bankers of the appellants namely United Commercial Bank, New Delhi is very different from the one submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e breakup because overall prices are negotiated. If individual components were to be purchased, individual prices could vary between 50 to 60% from the set prices. It is in view of that Taiwanese parties may have sent a different break-up in the invoice along with the consignment than the one sent to the bank, with the overall price of the same remaining the same. (ii) The appellants had no knowledge of the variation in the Duty Concession certificate as given to the Customs vis-a-vis with the one that was endorsed by the Department of Electronics. (iii) As soon as the company came to know of the discrepancies the company voluntarily paid the difference of duty as calculated by them and also applied for fresh DOE certificates for the quantities which were imported in excess and got the same issued by the Department of Electronics to cover even those excess quantities imported. The intention of the appellants was, therefore, never to manipulate the certificate though they derived almost no benefit from the same. The mistake of one individual in trying to short-circuit his work and make it easy cannot, therefore, be treated as a major offence on the part of the appellants in tryi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concerned. 4. Learned JDR appearing for the Revenue has pointed out that the show cause notice has made detailed allegations and the findings of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order are based on the allegations made in that show cause notice. He submits that it has not been denied that the appellants have furnished a copy of an invoice which is not genuine. They are merely making an excuse now that this is a copy which they got from the suppliers and that is why he submitted that it does not stand to reason that when an invoice for exactly identical goods for another consignment gives detailed break-up of values of various components, the invoice in the instant case would not provide such a detailed break-up of the various components comprising the machine imported under the present bill of entry. As regards the plea of non-submission of the certificate 014 relating to exemption Notification No. 67/85, the learned DR has submitted that the instant Bill of Entry No. 7058 clearly stipulated availment of Notification 67/85 dated 17-3-1985. That notification, he submits, is dependent only on the sole condition that an officer not lower in rank than a Joint Director in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en enclosed at pages 82-88 of the Paper Book. He drew attention to the introduction of the said Data Book at page 82 stating as follows :- This TTL Data Book is a complete reference source for all Fair Child Semi-Conductor SSI/MSI/TTL Products. 4.2 Learned DR, has, therefore, urged that the impugned order is correct in law and in the facts and circumstances of this case the appeal deserves to be rejected. 5. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both sides. We shall deal with the various pleas as seriatim below :- (1) As regards the allegations that the appellants submitted a manipulated copy of the invoice and the packing list with the Bill of Entry No. 7058 which is under consideration and not the correct invoice and packing list, we are of the view that the allegations made by the department are correct in the facts and circumstances in the instant case. When the importers/appellants are getting a detailed break-up of the values of the goods comprising components of computers and computer peripheral devices, they have to give separate prices for each component because the rate of duty is different for different components. It is apparent from the bill of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the availability of concessional rate of duty under Notification 67/85 in respect of the goods imported under this consignment vide Bill of Entry No. 7058. Tribunal s decision reported in 1988 (16) ECR 23 relied upon by the appellants is distinguishable on this aspect inasmuch as the only entry which was relevant for the purpose of that case before the Tribunal was without any manipulation as is apparent from para 8 of the said Report, relevant extract from which reads as follows :- As we have discussed earlier, the subject imported goods appear at S. No. 1 of the DOE Certificate alleged to be filed by the appellants) which appears on page 10 and 20 of the paper book. Annexure to the DOE Certificate on page 10 is the alleged DOE Certificate filed by the appellant alongwith the other Bill of Entry and on page 20 is the annexure to the DOE Certificate obtained by the Department from the office of the Department of Electronics. So far as this item at S. No. 1 is concerned, there is no interpolation. The only difficulty is that the appellant should have imported 15,000 pieces whereas he has imported 20,000 pieces in the present consignment. Apparently there appears to be importat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dix 3A items had they applied for it, the fact remains that in the present consignment the goods are without a valid import licence. The plea of the appellants is itself a clear admission of that. Therefore, the goods have been rightly held to be liable to confiscation under Section 111(d). (4) As regards the plea that the provisions of Section 111(o) have not been correctly invoked by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as they are not at all attracted in the instant case, we are inclined to agree with the appellants. As pointed out by them the provisions of Section 111(o) are attracted only for violation of any post importation condition whether relating to any prohibition on import or relating to any exemption from any duty. We are not inclined to accept their further plea that a suitable reduction in fine for non-attraction of Section 111(o) be made inasmuch as we feel that the adjudicating authority has already taken a fairly lenient view in imposing a fine only of Rs. 50,000/-against the confiscation of goods worth over Rs. 4 lakhs, 6. The adjudication order, therefore, is correct in law and in the facts and circumstances of this case. We, therefore, find no reason to int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
