TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This piece of evidence lends support to the doubt entertained by the department based on the information received as to the misdeclaration of value. 3. During the course of further investigation, the department obtained particulars relating to clearance of Thiourea through Bombay port. As per the details obtained, one M/s. IBP Co. Ltd. New Delhi imported under bill of entry Number 9897 dated 29-10-1992, a consignment of 17.50 MT of Thiourea of Chinese origin at an invoice price of US dollars 1420/MT C F Bombay. The relevant invoice bearing No. 92 INF 4057 dated 3-9-1992 is raised by M/s. China National Chemicals Import Export Corporation, Beizing for the supply of 17.5 MTs of Thiourea. 4. On the strength of the above evidence, the department s doubt regarding the correctness of the value declared at US dollars 700/MT CIF gained ground and transaction value called for by the department was also not produced. As such, Deptt. took the view that the transaction value declared in the instant case in terms of Rule 4 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules 1988, is not acceptable. 5. Show cause notice dated 2-3-1993 was issued as to why the assessable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a quotation for determination of value. Quotation, said the ld. Counsel, had been obtained from a source which is not clear and it is not known as to whom it is addressed. Further, the ld. Counsel argued, quotation is only in the nature of an offer and no imports have been shown to have taken place against the quotation, and it cannot, therefore, be a basis for enhancement of assessable value for which Tribunal decision in Great World v. Collector of Customs - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 39 was relied upon. Citing the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Sundeep Agarwal v. Commissioner of Customs - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 528 the ld. Counsel urged that there was no valid ground for the Commissioner to reject the invoice produced by them for the imported goods as not representing the value of thereof. 8. Ld. D.R., Sh. A.K. Singhal, contended that the goods which are of Chinese origin have been imported from a supplier in Hongkong. The appellants on being asked, had failed to produce manufacturer s invoice which the department is entitled to call for under Rule 10 of the Valuation Rules. Hence, the Deptt. itself had made enquiries in this regard and had obtained quotation giving data on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the two invoices. In both the goods have been simply described as Thiourea and in both the units packing is given as 25 kg. plastic woven bags. Significantly, the appellants, herein, have not produced any documents regarding placing of orders with the supplier to show what was the grade of Thiourea they had ordered for import. The sales confirmation dated 28-11-1992 from the Hongkong supplier gives no reference to any previous order/correspondence. We, further, note that Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta of the appellants in his statement on 12-2-1993, had said that he was not aware of any grade in Thiourea. Moreover, the appellants themselves are not sure that what IBP has imported was fertilizer chemical and had expressed view that it might really have been plastic compound, IBP being a Petro-Chemical Co. In this context, the failure on the part of the appellants to produce manufacturer s invoice assumes significance, as the goods admittedly are of Chinese origin shipped ex-Hongkong by a trader-supplier. The IBP import is from the same country of origin China and the description of the goods therein and the price compares with the quotation for the goods obtained from another Chinese Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come up for hearing before the Tribunal) and the reply from the supplier dated 1-4-1995 saying that they are prepared to buy back the goods. Additional grounds of appeal based thereon as argued by the ld. Counsel are that since the appellants find it uneconomical to clear the goods at the enhanced assessable value, they may be permitted to re-export the goods. On a careful consideration of the submissions made in this regard, it is found that the appellants had initially filed a Bill of Entry for Home Consumption for the clearance of the goods and when investigations were initiated into the correctness of the declared value, the appellants had sought permission to warehouse the goods and such permission under Sec. 49 of Customs Act 1962 had been given. They had thereafter participated in the adjudication proceedings, contesting on various grounds the valuation proposed by the Department. Neither during these proceedings, nor even in the appeal memorandum as originally filed before the Tribunal, is there any whisper of re-export of the goods as an alternative plea. Further, it is not as if the supplier holds any right on the goods because admittedly, the goods were the property of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
