HI-TECH IMPEX. & PUNEET KUMAR, Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE his impugned orders, the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) has enhanced the assessable value of the various electronic components imported by the appellants on the basis of letters written by M/s. Electronic Sales Corporation, Chcnnai and the invoices raised against M/s. Philips India Ltd., Mumbai, Accordingly, he has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 14,00,085 against the appellant, confiscated the imported goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and has also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on each of the two appellants.

(2.) SHRI A.K. Jayaraj, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that they had imported stock lot of various electronic components including ICs. They filed the Bill of Entry and declared the value of the goods based upon the invoices raised by the trader. However, Revenue entertained a belief that the value declared by the appellants was not correct and hence they conducted investigations. In the course of investigations, the Revenue procured one letter from M/s. Electronic Sales Corporation, Chennai, who are the dealers of M/s. Philips Electronic Components. Another letter was procured from M/s. Philips India Ltd., Mumbai wherein the current price lists of various types of their goods were indicated by them. Learned Advocate submits that their goods were not of "Philips" brand and the adjudicating authority has given a finding of the goods being of "Philips" brand based upon the numbers of ICs given by the appellants. He also submits that the said letters issued by the traders cannot be made the basis for enhancing the assessable value in the absence of any evidence to rebut the invoice price. Drawing our attention to the letter dated 12.1.2000 written by M/s. Philips India Ltd., Mumbai, he submits that there is a note in the said letter to the effect that - -"the above prices are for guidelines. In case of Excess or Obsolete stocks in order to liquidate the stocks different pricing policy is followed by our overseas Sales group for which the prices are not available to us." He submits that the above endorsement in the said letter makes it clear that the prices indicated are not conclusive and the same may change depending upon the situation. He produces on record the correspondence between the appellants and its overseas suppliers to the effect that the goods sent to the appellants were stock lot and the prices were less on that ground. He submits that appellants also brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority the contemporaneous imports of identical goods and produced the Bill of Entry. Same have not been accepted by the Commissioner on the ground that in case of two bills of entry, the supplier is the same and as such it cannot be considered to be contemporaneous. Third Bill of Entry has been rejected by him by observing that it is not clear as to whether the goods are of "Philips" make or not. The learned advocate (states that even in their case, the goods are not of 'philips' make. He strongly relies on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Richer Tractors Ltd., v. CC., Mumbai, 2000 (72) ECC 673 (SC) : 2000 (44) RLT 621 (SO, wherein the Hon'blc Supreme Court has held that in the normal circumstances, the transaction value has to be accepted and only exceptions are given in Rule 4 (2). He places reliance on the final order No. 55/2003 dated 22.1.2003 wherein under similar circumstances, the orders of enhancement of assessable value were set aside by observing that enhancement was not permissible on the basis of mere quotations. He submits that the said order has relied on two earlier orders of the Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Colour Labs. v. CC., 1992 (62) ELT 631 (T) and in the case of Sai Impex v. CC., 1992 (62) ELT 616 (T) which have been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

(3.) WE have heard Shri A. Jayachandran, learned JDR for the Revenue who reiterates the reasoning of the authorities below.