TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Bills of Entry No. 1120 dated 3-6-99 and 1121 dated 3-6-99. Both the consignments were declared as reconditioned components/parts of photocopiers. Bill of Entry No. 1120 related to 61 numbers of main frames and Bill of Entry No. 1121 related to 61 numbers of front covers, R-side covers/Mother Boards Drum Unit, Toner controller etc. The Customs Authorities examined the goods alongwith the expert assistence of Shri Jasvir Singh, Proprietor of Jasvir Electrostat, Ludhiana and Canon India Pvt. Ltd., Noida. Shri Jasvir Singh expressed the opinion that the 'main frame' covered by Bill of Entry No. 1120 constituted 55-60% of a Photo Copier and other parts covered by Bill of Entry No. 1121 amounted 15-20% of the photo copier. Canon India expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iption. 5. In the impugned adjudication order the Commissioner accepted the appellants' submission that the importing firms were independent and unrelated and held that the proposal to club the two imports cannot be sustained. Even then, he held that main frame constituted basic photocopier and in terms of Rule 2(a) of Customs Tariff Interpretative Rules the main frame could be treated as photo copier and assessed to duty as such. He also upheld the charge of mis-declaration of value. Accordingly, the goods were ordered to be assessed as photocopiers, they were confiscated and penalties were imposed on the appellants. The findings and orders in the impugned order are under challenge in the present appeals. 6. The main contention of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has also not been shown by the Customs authorities that similar or identical goods were being imported by other importers at higher prices. The authorities have adopted the quoted price for full machines provided by Canon India as the basis for assessment of the parts. The Counsel submitted that such a procedure is wholly contrary to valuation provisions under the Customs law. Counsel has submitted that as the findings regarding import of full machines is not sustainable, adoption of the price of full machine for assessment and consequential duty demand are also not maintainable. He also contended that as charges of mis-declaration of description and value are baseless. Confiscation of the goods and penalties imposed are also required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... templated in Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules. This issue remains covered in favour of the appellants under the order of the Calcutta High Court in the case of HCL. Therefore, the appeals have to succeed on this issue. 10. The valuation adopted in the impugned order is also not correct. The quoted supply price of Canon India for a full machine has been taken as the basis for working out the value of, admittedly, reconditioned parts. No acceptable reason has been indicated for discarding the transaction value. The valuation has also not been made depending upon the contemporaneous import value of similar or identical goods. In these circumstances, the valuation done in the impugned order has to be rejected. 11. In view of the above find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
