TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Srivastava, Member (T) Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri P.K. Katiyar, DR. for the Respondent. [Order per : A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original dated 23-11-2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, by which he has ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption of Rs. 3.50 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lakhs under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellants. The impugned order has also demanded differential duty of Rs. 5,84,150/- together with interest. 2. The case relates to the import of semi-conductors by the appellants vide Bill of Entry No. 140283 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Valuation Rules did not prohibit import from a trader and just because the goods had been imported from the trader, it could not be presumed that there was undervaluation of the goods. (iv) Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that the transaction value has to be accepted in each and every case and only in specific circumstances namely, being relation between the parties etc. the burden is on the Department to prove undervaluation, if any; (v) Reliance placed by the Department on the local selling prices obtained from the semi-conductor division of M/s. Philips India Ltd. cannot be used to load the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods Country of origin Price declared by the appellants per 1000 pcs USD Price obtained from M/s. Phillips India Ltd. per 100 pcs USD (i) BT 136/600D (Phillips brand) Philippines 14.80 12.30 to 12.60 (ii) BT 136/600E (Phillips brand) Philippines 14.80 12.30 to 13.00 (iii) BUT 11A (Phillips brand) Philippines 14.80 21.00 (iv) PHE 13005 (Phillips brand) Philippines 14.80 18.50 9. In this statement dated 3-1-2001, the proprietor of the appellants stated that he had been shown two letters dated 4-12-2000 and 20-12-2000 from M/s. Phillips India Ltd. stating the lowest prices of Phillips semi-conductors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice is obligatory under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 10. The appellants have not produced any correspondence to show that the price negotiations were long drawn out and hard fought. Hence their contention that the relatively much lower prices, which they could bargain, have arisen out of protracted and strenuous negotiation, does not carry conviction. The exceptionally low price does not represent the correct value as provided in Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Department has discharged the burden of proof by obtaining contemporaneous prices of identical goods of same country of origin (i.e. Philippines) from M/s. Phillips India Ltd. Therefore, the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Ei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed by the Commissioner. The loading of the value is justified in the facts and circumstances the case. Consequently, the demand of differential duty of Rs. 5,84,150/- together with interest and confiscation of the goods and their release on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- are in order. The same are upheld. However, The penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- imposed on the appellant appears to be on the higher side. There is scope for reduction of the same. Therefore, the penalty is reduced from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to meet the ends of justice. 14. Save for the modification as indicated above, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is upheld and the appeal is rejected. (Dictated in the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
