COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. INDIAN WATCH PARTS MFG.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals of the Revenue relate to issue of valuation of watch parts imported from Singapore Traders at Jaipur. Appeal No. C/177/03 -NB(A) relates to the import of 4000 pieces of assembled watch movements by Indian Watch Parts Manufacturer, Jaipur in June, 1995. The value of the consignment was declared to the Customs authorities at HK 10,000 and the goods were assessed and cleared at that value. Subsequent investigation showed that the foreign supplier had declared a F.O.B. value of Rs. HK 36,000 for the same consignment under their export declaration filed before the Hong Kong Customs. In Appeal No. C/248/03 -NB(A) Ro -chi Ram and Sons, Jaipur had imported a consignment of 53,000 pieces of watch -cases with metal band (bracelet) in August, 1994. The value of this consignment was declared to Custom at CIF US 27,878 i.e. Rs. 8,79,551/ -. Later investigation showed that, for the same goods, the foreign supplier had declared a value of HK 2,38,500 (Rs. 9,73,080/ - as F.O.B. value). Based on the differences in the value declarations to the Indian Customs and Hong Kong Customs, proceedings were initiated against the importers alleging that the importers have misdeclared values and have evaded customs duty. Apart from these differences in declared values, the value of other imports of identical goods was also relied upon. The notices proposed to recover the duty short levied and to impose penalty on the importers. The Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Authority dismissed the proceedings. The present appeals are directed against those orders.

(2.) WHAT prevailed with the lower authorities in passing their order was that there appeared to be no evidence of payment of higher amounts for the imports than the amounts declared in the import invoices and it has been held that in such cases value shown in the invoices were to be taken as transaction values. The orders also held that copies of export declarations obtained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence cannot be accepted as the basis for valuation of the goods. The lower authorities have relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector v. East Punjab Traders - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) and several decisions of this Tribunal. In the case of Indian Watch Parts Manufacturer, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that the proceedings were hit by limitation inasmuch as no appeal had been filed within the statutory time limit against the order of assessment and the clearance of the goods in June, 1995.

(3.) THE Revenue's contention is that the material on record in the present case clearly supported its case that the value declared by the importers were false. It is being pointed out that the supplies were from traders and the importers had failed to make available manufacturers' invoice to support the sale prices. The discrepancy between the prices in the export declarations and import invoices pointed only to under -declaration of value in the import invoices inasmuch as import of identical goods and the price quotation also showed that the value mentioned in the export declarations were the correct value for the transactions. The Revenue has also pointed out that the decision of the Apex, Court in the case of East Punjab Traders was not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as that case related to obtaining of some document by a visiting officer abroad, while in the present case customs authorities of Hong Kong had made available to their counterparts in India, statutory customs declarations filed before the Hong customs. It is being pointed out by Revenue that the statutory records of another customs jurisdiction deserve to be accepted. During the hearing of the cases, learned SDR has pointed out the legal position was no more in doubt inasmuch as the Apex Court had dismissed [1997 (93) E.L.T. A133 (S.C.)] appeal against this Tribunal's decision in a similar case [1996 (82) E.L.T. 499 Orson Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay.