TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Appeal rejected - decided against appellant. - C/1037/09 - A/85063/17/CB - Dated:- 3-1-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. VM Doiphode, Advocate for appellant Shri. MK Sarangi, Jt. Comm. (AR), for respondent Per: Raju 1. The appellants, M/s. Gaurav Sales Corporation imported watch modules at a declared value of Japanese Yen 35 per piece. The appellant claimed that they had entered into a contract for supply of 50 lakhs pieces of watch module 2035 at JY 35 per piece (CIF Mumbai). The first consignment of such watch modules consisting of ₹ 3,06,030/- pieces was imported vide invoice dated 08/07/2002 and Bill of Entry No.457430 dated 16/07/2002. The said bill of entry was finally assessed. Subsequently, watch movements/modules in various quantities were imported by the appellant by six different Bills of Entry from 25/07/2002 to 24/08/2002, however the said Bills of Entry were provisionally assessed. The matter was referred to SIIB. Statements of the appellant was recorded wherein he stated that the representative of Citizen Watch Company Ltd. had come to India and offered to supply watch modules at very ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yo to Hong Kong. b) Documents produced by importer along with bills of entry are Invoice Nos.TA020721N / TA020720N / TA020713N / TA020727N said to be issued by Citizen Watch Co Ltd., Japan with shipments from Hong Kong to Mumbai under AWB Nos.160-8326- 2336 / 2325 / 098-7881-9333 / 9355 issued at Hong Kong by K Line Air Services, Ltd with Consignor being K Line Air Service (HK), Kowloon and no mention of Citizen Watch Co, Japan. Thereafter, statements of Shri Rajendra B Jain, Proprietor of M/s. Gaurav Sales Corporation was recorded wherein he inter-alia deposed the following: c) He was asked to explain the difference in placement of words in lines and differing signatures on the original offer letter dated 12/06/2002 addressed to him by Citizen Watch Co Ltd and its photocopy . He stated that difference in placement of words seemed to be typographical/clerical computer line alignment adjustment. Regarding signature, he could not explain or comment and that it seemed similar but he did not know the exact position. e) He was shown offer letter dated 12/06/2002 and confirmation letter dated 14/06/2002 issued by Citizen Watch Co Ltd and asked if they were issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned as Shinjyuku Tokyo for address in these Letter-Head, though our address of head office had moved to Tanashi Tokyo in March 2001 and old letter-head had not been used after that. 2. Invoice No.TA020708N, TA0020713N, TA020720N, TA020721N, TA020726N and TA020727N. These invoices were not issued by us and the form for our original invoice for year 2002 is different from them. These refer attached our invoice. With regard to the matter above, 1 and 2, if Gaurav S. Corp. had intentionally made them for some purpose, these are unpardonable behavior. 3. In our movement business, we are dealing with lots of customers in the world, with various models, various prices and various business method which decided fairly and legally with our customers. We are not position to disclose them for all customers in consideration of ... On the basis of above communication, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking to reject the declared value under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and apply Rule 6 of the said Rules. The assessable value of the imported goods were re-fixed under Rule 6, the assessments were finalised under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the following attestation of Prakash G Paigude, Senior Manager, foreign department, Canara Bank, Mumbai. It contained endorsement stating that docs handled as per RBI guidelines . The said photocopies were in respect of invoice No.TA-020708N dated 08/07/2002, TA-020713N dated 13/07/2002, TA-020813N dated 30/08/2002. Learned Counsel argued that the amounts transferred through aforesaid TTs matched with the value declared in their bills of entry for assessment. 2.3 Learned Counsel further argued that the invoices submitted by K Line Air Services (Hong Kong) Ltd. who had shipped the said consignment to the appellant was 1,212,000 pcs in respect of Invoice No.TA-270206K-1. Learned Counsel argued that the value of US $ 227.040 declared on the said invoice was for 1,212,000 pieces and the value was US $ 227.040. The said goods were declared vide bill of entry No.467837 dated 03/08/2002 and in the said bill of entry a quantity of 303000 @ 35 Japanese Yen and 6060 @ 40 Japanese Yen was declared. The invoice Number was declared in the bill of entry was TA 020713N dated 30/07/2002. Following table summarized the details as it appears in the documents obtained from Hong Kong Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dule. He argued that if the total weight of the consignments sent by the Air Way Bill issued by K Line Air Services (Hong Kong) Ltd. was 850 Kgs consisting of 52 cartons which contained 1,212,000 pieces. If we divide the said gross weight of 850 Kgs (which includes the packing material) by the total number of pieces, the weight of each part on an average comes to 0.7 grm. He argued that even the appellants have in their statements admitted that there are no such watch movements which weight less than 1 gram. In the statement of Shri Rajendra Jain made before the Revenue, the learned AR argued that the invoice issued by K Line Air Services (Hong Kong) Ltd. is for parts of watch movements and each watch movement consists of 4 parts. Thus, the actual quantity of watch movement imported was 1/4 of the number of parts declared in the invoice of K Line Air Services (Hong Kong) Ltd. 3.1 Learned AR further argued that they have declared a unit price of ₹ 14/- whereas the invoice obtained from the Hong Kong Government show a price of ₹ 9/- per piece. It is obvious that the price declared in the Hong Kong invoice to K Line Air Services is for an item different from the watch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the purpose of assessment. 4. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that the appellant has produced certain invoices at the time of assessment. When the same invoices were sent to the Citizen Watch Company for confirmation, following response has been received. 1. Citizen s letter to Gaurav S. Corp. CIT/GSC/2002-03 dated 12 and 14, June, 2002. These letter including price offering do not exist and were not written by our staff. Head office mentioned as Shinjyuku Tokyo for address in these Letter-Head, though our address of head office had moved to Tanashi Tokyo in March 2001 and old letter-head had not been used after that. 2. Invoice No.TA020708N, TA0020713N, TA020720N, TA020721N, TA020726N and TA020727N. These invoices were not issued by us and the form for our original invoice for year 2002 is different from them. These refer attached our invoice. With regard to the matter above, 1 and 2, if Gaurav S. Corp. had intentionally made them for some purpose, these are unpardonable behavior. 3. In our movement business, we are dealing with lots of customers in the world, with various models, various prices and various business m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 52 PKG / H KONG 51 51 52 52 PCS / B.E 303000 303000 303000 + 6060 303000 + 1515 QTY / H KONG 1212000 1212000 1224120 1212000 BE / J.YEN 10605000 10605000 10847400 10668125 H KONG / HK $ 1699521 1699521 1788621.2 1774611.2 H KONG / US $ 215730 + 2157.3 215730 + 2157 227040 + 2270.4 222570 + 2225.7 It is seen that the invoices of K Line are issued prior to issue of invoices of Citizen Watch Co. produced by the appellant. It is not possible that the invoice of a consignment would be made by intermediary before the original invoice is made by manufacturer. The intermediary can make the invoice only after the same is made by original supplier. From the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his document reflects the record of information lodged, by M/s. K Line Air Services (Hong Kong) Ltd., Hong Kong the consignor of the goods in Hong Kong, with reference to the goods re-exported to the importers in India. c) AWBs issued by M/s. K Line Air Services (Hong Kong) Ltd. Hong Kong, for carriage of the goods from Hong Kong to Mumbai. d) Invoices issued by M/s. K Line Air Services (Hong Kong) Ltd. in favour of M/s. Gaurav Sales Corporation. e) Invoices issued by M/s. K Line Air Services (Hong Kong) Ltd., Hong Kong, to M/s. Citizen Watch Co. Ltd., Japan, towards charges like airfreight, terminal charges, airline documentation charges, handling charges, cartage charges, re-labeling charges, import/export declaration charges, cargo insurance surcharge, etc. incurred in connection with re-export of goods from Hong Kong to Mumbai. It is seen that corresponding to each Air Way Bill, the appellants have filed different bill of entry. The Commissioner has taken the value declared in the corresponding invoices of K Line Air Services (Hong Kong) Ltd. as the assessable value while doing this he has given suitable adjustments after examining the contemporaneous imports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
