PASUPATI TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (IMPORT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant imported calculators, clock spare parts and umbrellas declaring a total value of Rs. 7,04,876/ - claiming free import ability. An invoice from a Trading Co. in Hong Kong was produced. The goods were declared to be of Chinese origin. Details such as model, brand number, etc., were not available on perusal of the invoice. The goods were examined, samples taken and brand and model numbers, etc., ascertained. Bulk of the goods were of Korean and Chinese make. Except for CT 500 brand calculators, the details of the model, type Nos., etc., did not tally when compared with those on the goods and those on the documents. Prima facie it was a case of under -valuation. Earlier imports of CT 500 calculators of Chinese origin were noticed at USD 3.36 FOB as against USD 0.29 (CIF) declared by the importers. Importers were not able to produce the manufacturer's invoices. For the other goods market inquiries were conducted and values obtained. Show cause notice was issued. In reply the importers contested the comparison with the CT 500 brand calculators earlier imported. Findings of the market inquiry were challenged. It was claimed that the loading of calculators of other brands was without justification. It was claimed that the contested goods were a stock lot. The Commissioner, however loaded the price, confiscated the goods, allowing redemption on payment of fine and also imposed a penalty.

(2.) SHRI Doiphode submits that the market enquiry report, which was the basis of escalation of prices, was not given to the appellants in spite of repeated requests. On the ground of denial of natural justice alone, the order deserved to be set aside.

(3.) SINCE the goods imported were stock lot, the prices could not be compared with the goods imported other than in stock lot. As regards the prices of Citizen CT 500 calculators, it is his claim that the prices based on the invoice of M/s. Japan CBM Corporation could not be adopted because the consignment supplied by M/s. Japan CBM Corporation to M/s. Rivera Digitee (Ind.) Pvt. Ltd., was of 8600 pieces whereas the appellants in one consignment had imported a very substantial quantity of goods, and therefore, the prices were not comparable. He challenged the methodology of calculation of prices following Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules, as haphazard. The Commissioner's very act of taking the value of the imported goods at about 48% or 33% of the market value of goods of another description could not become the basis for rejection of the declared value. He drew attention to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] and claimed that no ground existed for the Commissioner, to have rejected transaction value. Shri Shaikh supports to the Commissioner's order claiming that no evidence was led by the appellants to show that the goods were stock lot.