COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS Vs. ARYAN ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent herein who is trading in electronic goods had imported a consignment of 30,000 pieces which was described in the Bill of Lading as "parts of VCD - LENCE WITH MECHANISM". In the Bill of Entry which was filed by the Respondent for clearing of the aforesaid imports, the value of the goods was declared at US $ 0.72 per piece and total value of US $ 21,600 was arrived at in the aforesaid import. In support of this declaration of value, the Respondent had produced Bill of Lading dated 14.4.2003 and invoice dated 9.4.2003. Since the goods were not purchased directly from the manufacturer but from a trader, the invoice produced was that of the trader who had sold the goods to the Respondent.

(2.) The goods were assessed to duty and ordered to be examined before clearance. On examination the customs authorities found that this has been sub-assemblies for VCDs - Lens with mechanism. It was also found that in the result, the packets of the goods were marked as "Made in China" and were bearing brand name of "Samsung". As this fact was not reflected on the invoice and the Department nurtured the doubt that the goods are branded and therefore the value discloses was not the true value of the goods, the 'Department sought clarification from the Respondent vide letter dated 23.5.2003 regarding brand name. In this communication the Respondent was also asked to justify the declared value.

(3.) The Respondent replied vide letter dated 28.5.2003 stating that only the eye of the lens with mechanism was branded and other parts like motor parts etc. were not branded and were made in China. It was also stated that only a few boxes were bearing a small sticker of Samsung to distinguish that the mechanism is having Samsung brand Lens. Insofar as query on valuation is concerned, it was explained by the Respondent that imported goods are unbranded and the transaction has been made through the bank and, therefore, the declared value be accepted.