9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the chart below : CaseNo. B/E No. Inv. No. Impor- ters Supplier Descrip- tion Value Qty TotalC/O Rs. 1. 5456 dated 16-11-1989 DE/321/11/89 dt. 8-11-1989 Zenith Compu-ters Diplomat Electronics Singapore Laser Jet Printer US$5514 Per Unit (FOB) 5 241181 USA 2. 7699 9-2028/89 16-9-1989 After Business Machine P. Ltd. SBEE COPTEU Singapore TI 2106TI 2106 Laser Printer US$ 2500 Per unit (CIF) 1 41552 USA 3. 9668 dated 26-12-89 DE-324/12 189 dated 20-12-89 Zenith Technology Diplomat Electonic Singapore Laser Jet Printer Model 2106 US$ 2767 per unit (FOB) 18 444176 USA In view of this, the department called upon the appellants to explain about the undervaluation on the basis of the details furnished in the above chart. It is contended by the importer that (a) In case No.1 the importers, M/s. Zenith Computers, imported not only Laser Jet Printer but also extra options as has been confirmed by the suppliers M/s. Diplomat Electronics who have supplied the working sheet. According to the said working sheet the value of the laser jet printer is S$ 2767 per unit and that of extra options supplied to M/s. Zenith Computers is another S$ 2747. (b) In case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtra optional input tray was imported in that case did not appear to be correct. (d) In Case No. 2 the description of the goods in Bill of entry/invoice is laser printer and not laser printer with options. As per examination report recorded on reverse of Bill of entry in Case No. 2 the goods are found to be as per invoice description. As such, no presumption could be made that the laser printer is Case No. 2 was alongwith options. On the basis of the above analysis it appeared that the goods imported in all the above cases including that of the importers are same i.e. laser printer. Hence it appeared from the comparative chart mentioned in Para 2 that the value in case of subject imports is significantly low when compared to value of contemporary imports (viz. Case No. 1 and Case No. 2). In accordance with normal trade practice it could not have been possible for the suppliers to supply the subject goods at such a ridiculously low price and hence the invoice did not appear to reflect the correct price at which such goods are sold or offered for sale at or about the time of import. The prices charged in the invoice cannot therefore be deemed as 'transaction value' as contemplated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... untry of origin at almost double price. It itself shows that the declared transaction value is not at all acceptable in this case in view of the reasons : (i) that the department had produced evidence of two imports of laser printer at much higher price and details of these are the one disclosed by them. He has held that the import in other two cases were also only laser printer and there was no extra options/accessories imported therein. He has rejected the importer's contention that the importer in S. No. 1 of the table had imported extra options on the ground that the importer had informed the department that this input tray was inbuilt in the laser printer. He has also rejected the plea of the importer that the extra optional type faces/character sets were inbuilt in the laser printer, is not correct. For this he has again relied on the imports of the other two parties. He has also rejected the plea of quantity of 18 imported by this importer as against 5 and 1 by the other importers on the ground that cannot be a satisfactory reason for explaining such a large variation in prices. He has held that the party has not been able to satisfactorily explain why the price in their ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... self explicitly showed that the bare printer is priced at Singapore Dollars 2767/- which is the same as the price charged to the Appellants by the same supplier for supply effected to the Appellants. It is further stated that the said invoice further mentions and enlists six different types of instruments attached and described as "Extra options" which had been separately valued at Singapore $2767/-. It is stated by them that even the Bill of Entry filed by the said Zenith Computers also showed the said value and as such described as "Laser Jet Printer Texas Instruments" and further described in the invoice as "Texas instruments" under the caption Extra Options. It is stated that the Appellants' invoice in terms described 18 numbers of the said printers as "Laser Jet Printers" which by itself proved that the same was without any extra options and that there was no Texas instruments attached thereto. The appellants stated that the inquiries made with M/s. Diplomant Electronics, Singapore, being the common supplier who had by their letter informed them that the goods sold to Zenith Computers was with extra options as the bare printer had been invoiced to both Zenith Computers as also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms v. M/s. Papyrus Papers Ltd. -- 1993 (65) E.L.T. 212 (Tribunal) 7. M/s. Manjushree Minerals Ltd. v. Collector of Customs -- 1993 (68) E.L.T. 273 (Cal.) 8. Gandharv Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras -- 1995 (78) E.L.T. 276 9. M/s. Basant Industries v. Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay -- 1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (SC) 10. M/s. Poysha Indl. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, -- 1996 (86) E.L.T. 141 (Tribunal) 7. Ld. DR argued on the basis of the findings given by the lower authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the records. The question that arises to consideration is as to whether the price declared in respect of Laser Jet Printer by the appellants in the invoice and the Bill of Entry is required to be accepted? The department has relied on the Bill of Entry dated l6-11-1989 in respect of Zenith Computers wherein the value has been shown as Singapure $ 5514 as against $ 2767 declared by the importer herein. The department has also relied on the Bill of Entry 21-9-1989 of Aftek Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. wherein the description of the goods is ESBEE COPTEU Singapore and u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of under valuation in the present case. They have also not shown the reasons for rejecting the invoice price declared by the appellants and for proceeding under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules. The rulings relied by the appellants in their favour supports the stand they have taken up and it required to be applied in the present case. 10. In the case of Honesty Traders, the Tribunal has held that under Section 14(1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962, the value for the purpose of assessment of duty would be the deemed value as provided for under that Section. It has been held that for comparison of the value, the goods should be the same in respect of physical characteristics, quality, reputation, country of origin, timing of import. It has also been held that the assessed value cannot be determined on the basis of mere assumptions and presumptions and that suspection however, grave cannot be substitute for positive proof and in this regard, the Tribunal has relied on its earlier judgment rendered in the case of Automotive Enterprises v. Collector - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 283 and that of Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Collector as reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 249. 11. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermination the question of undervaluation. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the relationship between the importer and foreign supplier has also to be kept in mind because it is a matter of common knowledge that a price which is offered by a supplier to an old customer may be different from a price which the same supplier offers to a totally new customer. 15. In the case of Poysha Indl. Co. Ltd., the Tribunal has held that the Collector placed reliance on two instances of contemporaneous import at value higher than value declared by the appellant. The relevant invoices bore the dates 18-3-1987 and 13-4-1987. The corresponding dates of indents were 30-1-1987 and 16-2-1987. The quantities imported are not known. The Tribunal held that the appellant had contracted with the suppliers for import of 5000 m.t. of tin plate prime in March, 1986 and the price was fixed at that stage itself. By the time the subject import was made, more than half the contracted quantity had already been imported and cleared. Thus, there are two significant differences between the subject import and the compared import. The price for the subject import was fixed nearly one year before the date of inde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
