TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Cargo Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi. They also appended declaration along with that Bill of Entry regarding the correctness of the contents of the invoices and the documents regarding the valuation of the goods and their country of origin. The goods were accordingly cleared under P.D. Bond. However, on 19-11-1997, acting on an intelligence, the officers of the Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, New Delhi examined the goods imported vide above said Bill of Entry dated 1-11-1997. As a result of examination of the goods and the documents produced by the appellants, it revealed that they had misdeclared the country of origin of the goods in the declaration and in the Bill of Entry. The country of origin declarled by them in these documents was China whereas the goods on examination were found predominantly to be of Japan. They failed to produce the manufacturer s invoice regarding the goods. The goods were accordingly seized through panchnama dated 19-11-1997 under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The statement of Shri Satish Sharma, Director of the appellant company M/s. R.J.S. Studios (P) Ltd. was also recorded wherein he disclosed that earlier they were engaged in the business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to the appellants to get the same redeemed on payment of Rs. 3 lakhs besides raising demand of differential duty of Rs. 6,56,683/- from them. He had also imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakh on each of the appellants. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with this impugned order of the Commissioner, the appellants have come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the sides. 7. The learned Counsel has contended that the enhancement in the declared price of the imported goods has not been made in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act and that the quotations taken from M/s. Tom Music Co. Ltd. and Lee Company and the value of the goods declared by the exporter M/s. Creotex International Exnterprises with the Hongkong Customs Excise Department could not be legally taken into consideration for doubting the correctness of the transaction price of the goods as declared by the appellants in the Bill of Entry before the Customs authorities, for want of any evidence of contemporaneous imports of the identical/similar goods at a price higher than the one declared by the appellants. In support of his contention the counsel has placed reliance on - (1) 1999 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the price list published by M/s. Creotex International Enterprises, had been rightly not accepted by the adjudicating authority as the copy of that list placed on the file revealed that it did not bear any stamp of that company or certificate of correctness. Moreover, this very company from whom the appellants imported the goods in question, declared the price of these goods much higher than the one mentioned by them in their invoice and the Bill of Entry. That company declared the value of the imported goods with Hongkong Customs Excise Department at Hongkong dollars 236585 (FOB) (equivalent to Indian Rs. 11,14,315.35). This declaration was certified to be correct by the Hongkong Customs authorities as is evident from the letter dated 10-11-1999 received from that authority by the Customs authorities of India during investigation. No evidence whatsoever to rebut the correctness of that price declared by the supplier of the goods at Hongkong has been brought on record by the appellants. This piece of evidence was enough to discard the transaction price of the goods, as declared by the appellants in the Bill of Entry and the invoice, for the adjudicating authority. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son Electronic Systems Ltd. (supra) the adjudicating authority did not consider the reply of the appellants to show cause notice and solely relied upon quotations taken from overseas suppliers and on that ground the order was not held to be justifiable in law. In N.K. Agarwal (supra) the value of the identical goods in contemporaneous imports through other Custom House furnished by the importers in defence was rejected on the assumption that such accepted value might have been reviewed later and for that reason the order of the adjudication authority was quashed. 13. In CC, Calcutta v. Chem Crown (I) Ltd., supra it has only been observed that invoice price in routine should not be discarded except on the strength of a clear evidence that that it was not genuine and correct. In Karn Vir Mehta, supra, it has been only ruled that assessment can only be on the basis of price fixed with reference to the price paid for the goods actually imported and not on notional or fictitious basis. In Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd., supra the higher discount to an importer who was importing the goods in large quantity, was given by the foreign supplier after negotiations and there was no evidence of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given by the leading companies dealing in the same musical instruments at Hongkong, Singapore, namely M/s. Tom Lee Music Company Ltd. (Hongkong) and M/s. Swee Lee Company Singapore also revealed that the price declared by the appellants was fictitious and incorrect. The quotations sent by these companies were put to them during the adjudication proceedings and they failed to dispute the correctness of the same. Therefore, in terms of Rules 8 and 9 of the customs valuation rules read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, the price of the imported goods had been rightly assessed by the adjudicating authourity after rejecting the declared price by the appellants. In Sharp Business Pvt. Ltd. v.. CC, 1990 (49) E.L.T. 640 the Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs has observed that there is nothing wrong if the value for the purposes of customs duty is determined on the basis of quotations especially when there had been undervaluation of the goods in the invoice by the importer. In the case in hand, as observed above, there was gross undervaluation of the price of the imported goods by the appellants. They even failed to produce the manufacturer s invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
