9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant submitted Bill of Entry dated 3-5-1990 and other import documents declaring CIF value as US $ 5.70 per hundred yards. The Additional Collector issued show cause notice suggesting valuation of US $ 7.50 per hundred yards CIF i.e., Rs. 1,27,659.57 for one lakh yards. Three REP licences produced covered Rs. 97,021.00. Thus it was alleged there was shortfall in licence. Notice also proposed confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) and penal action under Section 112 of the Act. The appellant resisted the notice. The Additional Collector passed the impugned order determining value at US $ 6.65 per hundred yards and since there was shortfall in licence, confiscating the goods valued at Rs. 16,17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant were not identical or similar to goods covered by the four invoices relied on by the Department and the compared imports were not contemporaneous and hence prices in those invoices could not be adopted. (b) The Additional Collector was in error in ignoring the evidence of three other imports produced by the Appellant. (c) In the light of (a) and (b) and in the absence of evidence of flow of additional consideration, the transaction value should have been accepted. (d) The enhanced value could not have been debited against licences produced. (e) Since the goods were not available for confiscation, confiscation could not have been ordered. 6. Point (a). The imported goods were "Zip in Coil No. 5 SF" as shown in the Bill of E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . But the notations relate not to Zip in Coil, but to sliders of Zip in Coils and therefore cannot have much significance. The documents relied on by the Appellant refer to goods covered thereunder as Zip in Coil No. 3 and Zip in Coil No. 5. A Bill of Entry produced by the Appellant contains the description "Zip in Coils NO CF" added in ink and the addition in ink is not initialled or certified. It is thus clear that ordinary Zip in Coils are described as "No. 3" or "No. 5" or by other appropriate numbers. It is true, as pointed out by the Appellant, the particular design of the imported goods and goods relating to compared imports is known. But there is nothing to indicate that price varies according to the design. So also about the weight ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 21-12-1989 (Date of import not indicated) Zip in Coil No. 3 and Zip in Coil No. 5 Total 1 Lakh goods of Taiwan origin. US $ 3.55 and 5.50 per 100 yards respe-ctively. Order does not indicate if value was FOB or CIF. Assistant Collector enhanced to US $ 3.55 and 6.65 respectively. The latter was based on two imports of October and November, 1989 of 1,00,000 yards and 40,000 yards. This was set aside mainly on the ground that quantity imported by the importers in the case was very much lower than the quantities imported in the compared cases. Invoice dated 23-4-1990 Zip in Coil No. 5 2000 yards Taiwan origin US $ 5.50 per 100 yards FOB. Freight US $ 0.90 for 100 yards. CF value US $ 6.40 This is stated to be a test import made at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entry is suspicious since it contains a few insertions in ink and the entries in bottom left side are not copied and instead something else is copied. There is some manipulation in the document. 9. Learned Counsel on the basis of written submission made before the Additional Collector stated that in another case the value of Zip in Coil was increased from US $ 2.28 per 100 yards to US $ 5.97 per 100 yards and the appeal against such enhancement was allowed by the Tribunal in their order reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 413 (Tribunal) = 1991 (33) ECR 194. The subject import in this case was of 60 lakhs yards and the country of origin could not be determined. It was therefore held that the subject import of huge quantity could not be compar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent upto US $ 7.50 CIF per 100 yards. The Appellate Collector's order produced by the appellant shows that on an order for the large quantity of 10 lakh yards, the price was US$ 5.50 per 100 yards though it is not clear if the price was FOB or CIF. The test invoice of April, 1990 obtained by the Appellant shows price to be US $ 5.50 per 100 yards FOB or US $ 6.40 per 100 yards CIF, though the document cannot have much evidentiary value. These materials indicate a fairly consistent and stable pattern of price in International trade. In the face of this significant price pattern, the Appellant has a duty to explain for what reason and under what background the supplier charged only US $ 5.70 CIF per 100 yards and how the lower price could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
