TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeared to be undervalued to the Customs authorities and of doubtful country of origin. Accordingly, first appraisement was given and samples of the items were called for verification of the declarations made by the appellants. After examination of the goods in shed, inspection of the samples and catalogues accompanying each item it revealed that the goods were of Japanese origin, as per markings on the lenses. Further the lenses were found to have two different types suitable for Nikon and Pentax. 1.2 The appellants vide their letter dated 7-10-1997 stated that they were not related to the supplier of goods and insisted that the declared value in the above invoice was genuine and correct. The appellants vide their further letter dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Paper Book, states that ex-facie the said document showing the prices is not at all signed by anyone. It cannot, therefore, be relied for the purpose of taking any guidance from the said list. He also points out that it is apparent from the said document that the person who has displayed the list allegedly on the internet is also dealing in lenses not only of Vivitar but also of other companies when the list states as under :- E-mail us (wholesale @shore.net) with your Vivitar or other lens needs. Include your zip code (US) or country (non-US) for a complete quote. [Emphasis supplied by the Advocate] No manufacturer, he submits, will advertise goods for other persons as the aforesaid document indicates. This last s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said evidence and on the apparent inspection of the documents relied upon by the Revenue no reliance can be placed in so far as the prices of imported goods are concerned. In support of this proposition, the learned Advocate relied on the judgement of Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. East Punjab Traders - [l987 (89) E.L.T. 11] wherein unsigned fax copy was declared to be of no evidentiary value by the Apex Court. 2.2 Learned Advocate further submits that neither the internet price nor the so-called baggage prices, referred to in the show cause notice and in the impugned order for the purpose of comparing with the prices declared by the appellants, indicate as to what quantity of goods can be purchased and what quality of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 81) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) - Para 3 Basant Industries (2) 1998 (98) E.L.T. 3 Paras 10 11 Meera Exports (3) 1998 (101) E.L.T. 172 Para 4 G.K. Sons v. C.C.E., Calcutta. He also draws attention to Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules which specifically lays down in sub-rule (2) that no value shall be determined under the provisions of these Rules on the basis of :- (i) the prices of the goods on the domestic market of the country of exportaion; (ii) the price of the goods for the export to a country other than India. He, therefore, submits that in view of this rule the price of Vivitar lenses on the basis of internet document, as mentioned prevailing in U.S.A. possibly in the domestic market cannot be applied for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e document displayed on the internet is not worthy of reliance. It is doubtful whether this document can at all be taken as the computer print out fulfilling the conditions of sub-section (2) of Section 138C of the Customs Act. It cannot be considered to be computer print out merely because it has been displayed on internet. Similarly, the baggage price relied on in the show cause notice has no evidentiary value for import of goods in the course of international trade. Further, as is rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate, these prices are merely the assertion of the customs authorities in the show cause notice without any documentary evidence in support of that assertion. 5.1 As against the unreliability of evidence produced by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
