SIDDHARTHA APPARELS Vs. CC, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order -in -original No. 20/2001 dated 16.8.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs. Jaipur. Under the above order a differential duty amounting to Rs. 7,16,684/ - was demanded from the appellant in respect of Nylon Flock Fabrics imported by it under Bills of Entry Nos. 28 and 29 both dated 3.9.1996. The appellant imported two consignments consisting of two containers each declared to contain 20,000 metres of cloth from Korea. Bill of Entry dated 3.9.1996 was filed for assessment of goods claiming classification under sub -heading No. 5907.00 of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Suspecting under valuation/misdeclaration of the goods they were subjected to examination. Representative samples were drawn for testing. Both the consignments were shipped from Korea by M/s. Kabul Synthetics Company Ltd. Under the invoices price of the material was shown @ 1.35 USS per metre. Payment has been made through the Bank to M/s. Vastraco Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. It appeared to the authorities found that the value cannot be acceptable as transaction value in terms of Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. It was also that identical goods manufactured and shipped to India by the same party were imported at a much higher value i.e. @ 1.9 US $ per metre.

(2.) SHOW cause notice was issued to the importer as to why assessment should not be finalised at contemporary CIF value of US $ 1.90 per metre. The adjudicating authority confirmed the above demand which is under challenge in this appeal. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the material imported by it under the two Bills of Entry are entirely different from the alleged contemporaneous Import. In the Bill of Entry of the appellant the goods are described as "Velvet width 54" (Flocking Fabrics) as upholstery fabric "whereas in the contemporary import relied upon by the Customs authorities the goods are described as 'lining material' (Nylon Tricot flocking) 54" width. Therefore, according to the appellant there was no justification in comparing the invoice value of the consignment imported by M/s. Sales Corporation, Pondicherry. It was also contended relying on Basant Industries v. CC, 1993 (66) ELT 3 (T) :, 1993 (48) ECR 234 (SC) that since the quantity of fabrics imported by the appellant is more than the invoices relied on in the show cause notice, those imports cannot be taken as contemporary imports. It is the case of the appellant that the goods are velvet and not flocking fabric, as alleged by the Revenue. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that there is no reason to reject the transaction value. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractors v. Commissioner 2000 (122) ELT 321 : : 2000 (93) ECR 579 (SC) it was submitted that if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules. He also contended that the Revenue has wrongly placed reliance on the payment routed through a third party in order to discredit the transaction value of the appellant.

(3.) WE find no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant. In the invoices dated 17.6.1996 the goods are described as Velvet width 54" whereas in the confirmation letter the description is 'Nylon Tricot Flocking Velvet'. In the Bills of Entry we get a different description as 'Velvet width 54" Flocking Fabric as upholstery Fabric'. Ultimately from the test report it came out that the material is Nylon Flocks applied on the surface of knitted base fabric and not velvet. In the light of the above, we are inclined to hold that the Customs authorities are fully justified in taking the view that appellant is guilty of misdescription of the goods imported.