NAVINCHANDRA & CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS/ACC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in their normal course of business imported a consignment of WITTOCX IMPREGNATED SCAIVES (COBALT FREE) and filed a Bill of Entry No. 07451 dated 17.12.93 in the Air Cargo Complex at Sahar Airport, Mumbai for clearance of the subject goods. The goods were described as 'SCAIVES' and the consolidated assessable value on conversion to Indian Rupees with requisite additions was declared as Rs. 563010/ -. The perusal of he invoice described the goods as follows -

(2.) Since the invoice for the imports of the goods had declared two different types of scaives at different unit price for each, it was observed by the Officers that the price of 3 pieces was almost three times of the price declared for 53 pieces of the scaives. Since there was a vast difference between the price of the two types of scaives named as LMJ -3 and LMJ -1, the goods were sent for examination on first check basis and samples were drawn for inspection and enquiries were alleged to ascertain whether they were two kinds of goods and whether there was a difference between the two types of scaives necessitating the difference in value.

(3.) Diamond impregnated scaives are tools used for polishing diamonds. The subject import is an item consisting of a disk mounted on a spindle. The polishing medium is in the form of a band of about 30 millimetres and is said to be made up of diamond powder held together by a binding material. The manufacturer and the supplier for the subject import is M/s. Wittocx N.V. of Belgium. The Department has observed several instances of import of this item from the aforementioned manufacturer/supplier. It has been observed that there is a considerable variation in the unit price of scaives which, though variously described, were identical in appearance and the differences in value were attributed to quality differences. The invoices received over a period of time indicate that scaives have been imported at different values, wherein the description given in the invoice bear qualifications such as "1/3rd impregnated", "fully impregnated", "1/5th impregnated" etc. There was even an instance of import of 1/10th impregnation. The value declared was in proportion to the "extent of impregnation". Subsequently, it was observed that Scaives were described in invoice as "LMJ -1", "LMJ -2". "LMJ -3", etc. without a reference to "extent of impregnation". The value of LMJ -1 was same as that of the "fully impregnated" Scaives. Give the variety of references and classifications attached to Scaives imported from this company for items which are indistinguishable in appearance, it was felt that these Scaives received from the supplier bearing such description need to be investigated further.