TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 636X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 52 pcs 125 (Pentium) 1.2 The appellant submitted requisite license for clearance of mother Board and claimed clearance of printers under OGL. Matrix printers were declared to be of French origin (Epson brand) while mother Board of Japanese/Taiwanese origin. Goods were shipped from Singapore. 1.3 On perusal of the import documents of the instant consignment and after consulting experts in the trade and past record of valuation maintained by the Appraiser, value of the goods was enhanced to S $ 262 in respect of mother (pentium) Board as recorded in file, consent of the appellant Co.'s Director Shri Bimal Khemka, second appellant herein, was obtained, orders of the Assistant Commissioner (A.C.) A.Cg.C under the control of Commissioner of Customs (C.C.), Calcutta was obtained, and assessment was made accordingly. The appellants agreed to pay duty of ₹ 1,92,422.30 on such enhanced value as against the duty of ₹ 99107.00 payable on the declared value. 1.4 It is alleged by the Revenue that on investigation, it was found that the appellants vide B/E dated 10.5.95 had cleare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce these Appeals before the Tribunal. 2.1 Ld. Consultant, Shri D.K. Saha has in the first instance raised questions of lack of jurisdiction or exercise of excess jurisdiction by the adjudicating officer, C.C. (P). He has pointed out that the goods were received in the A.Cg.C, which is specifically under the jurisdiction of C.C, Calcutta. There was an initial doubt about the declared value of the imported goods. The Appraiser gave an estimate of the correct value of the imported goods on consultation of his past record as also on consultation with experts in the Trade, as indicated from the notings in the relevant file and obtained the orders of the A.C.C concerned for enhancement of value of two of the items out of three items imported, after the appellants had waived the show-cause and oral hearing and consented to enhancement of value. In these circumstances, the ld. consultant submits an adjudication on valuation of the goods by a competent officer has already taken place and there cannot be a second adjudication on the self-same issue between the same parties in respect of the same consignment. It is immaterial whether the goods have been released or not by the Customs auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be followed by the officers and staff of both the Custom House as well as the Preventive Collectorate dealing with suspect consignments and importers :- 1. Consignments, for which Bills of entry or baggage declaration have been filed in the Custom House or at the Airport or Air Cargo Complex, would be dealt with by the officers of the Custom House. If any of such cases require any detailed investigation, such cases may be referred by the Appraising Groups, Docks and Airport Officers and Staff to SIB and DIU (Apprg.) Units. 2. In respect of cargo and baggage for which no Bills of entry or baggage declaration has been filed, the officers of the Preventive Collectorate will have full liberty to conduct any investigation. They would also have full liberty to proceed against any cargo and baggage which are concealed or unmanifested. 3. In cases where the officers of the Custom House have allowed the cargo or baggage to be cleared after examining the related Bills of entry or baggage declaration but the officers of the Preventive Collectorate consider that these require further investigation, they should bring such cases to the notice of the concerned Dy. Collector of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing legally wrong in conferment of such concurrent jurisdictions by the Central Government. Precedent of Duncan Agro (supra) cited by the ld. SDR, fully supports the view advanced by him. But on the closer and deeper consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the action of the C.C. (P), West Bengal and his sub-ordinate officer A.C.C. (R I) is invalid because that action ousts a valid exercise of jurisdiction by the officers under the control of C.C. (Calcutta). In our view, law confers no powers on the C.C. (P) or the officers working under him to snatch a case from officers of the C.C. Calcutta and over-rule their actions. This is the crux of the facts and circumstances of this case. To elucidate, goods of the consignment arriving in Calcutta on 14.6.95 were duly manifested in the import manifest, referred to in Section 30 of the Act and that manifest was accepted by an officer of Customs in terms of that Section. A Bill of Entry was filed in the A.Cg.C and noted therein. The goods were examined and assessed after due application of mind with particular reference to the value of the imported goods by the concerned A.C. All these officers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to be set aside. 5.1 Next contention of the ld. consultant is that proper course for the Revenue was to follow the procedure laid down under Section 129D, once the goods in both the cases had been cleared [in one case actually cleared and in another case liable to be cleared] by the Customs authorities after proper adjudication by the concerned A.C.C. on the question of valuation of the goods. He submits that the Apex Court has sanctioned issue of a show-cause notice under Section 124 only in case of an allegation of a fraud committed by an importer. The Apex Court, in Jain Shudh, approved the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 124, rather than following the procedure under Section 129D, on the finding that painting of stainless steel container so as to make them look like that of mild steel was an allegation which prima-facie was a fraud on the part of Jain Shudh as alleged in the show-cause notice. This fact of painting of the stainless steel containers was allegedly within the knowledge Jain Shudh. In the instant case, submits the ld. consultant, allegation of fraud is prima facie unsustainable on the evidence relied upon by the C.C. (P) West Bengal in his sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this is another ground for setting aside the impugned order. We order accordingly. 6.1 Now we shall look into the question of valuation of goods in the two consignments, although this issue is only of academic interest in view of our findings above. 6.2 Lower authority has made some observations regarding the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act and the rules made thereunder :- SS (1A) of S.14 enjoins that subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the price referred to in that sub-section in respect of imported goods shall be determined in accordance with the rule made in that behalf. It follows, therefore, Customs Valuation Rules 1988 (CVR 1988) require to be followed in determining the price on the basis of which duty of Customs has to be charged. 6.3 Rule 3 of the said CVR 1988 stipulates that (i) value of the goods shall be the transaction value; (ii) if the value cannot be determined under the provisions of clause (i) above, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through rules 5 to 8 of these rules. 6.4 Rule 4 defines transaction value and the conditions for its acceptance. Sub-rule (1) states that the transaction value of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciple that transaction value cannot be rejected unless there is some evidence that any clandestine remittance has been made by the appellant or that there is any other consideration between the supplier of goods and the importer or the transaction is between related persons. He relies on Calcutta High Court's judgement in the case of Sandeep Agarwal Vs. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (62) ELT 528. 6.8 Opposing the contention, ld. SDR reiterates the finding of the adjudicating authority. He submits that the appellant itself has admitted about the incorrectness of the transaction value when it agreed to enhancement of values in respect of certain items on the basis of which order had been passed by the A.C.C.. On the basis of this admission, transaction value as shown in the invoice has no sancity and has, therefore, been rightly ignored by the adjudicating authority. 6.9 In his rejoinder, ld. consultant, Shri D.K. Saha has pointed out that the authority cannot make a capital out of the consent to enhancement of values given by the appellant. That consent was given to avoid further loss of profit to the appellant, since the goods were required urgently. Resisting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
