TOPLANE Vs. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), KOLKATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. The written submission filed by the Id. Advocate for the appellants on 17 -9 -08 and the written submission filed by the ld. DR for the Department on 18 -9 -08, have also been taken into account. This case involves the valuation of 2,00,000 pieces of HCG Pregnancy Test Strip (width 2.5 mm) imported from China by the appellants against Bill of Entry No. 246646 dated 22 -8 -05. The appellants have claimed the assessment at the declared value of US $ 0.021 per piece (91 paisa per piece) where as the Department has re -determined the value at US $ 0.09 (Rs. 3.93 per piece). The appellants have claimed that the invoice submitted by them from M/s. Blue Cross Biomedical (Beijing) Co. Ltd. of China, is a manufacturers invoice. They have also submitted that the value relied upon by the Department is based on the value of Pregnancy Test Card Type 4.0 mm imported under Bill of Entry No. 245130 dated 10 -8 -05 and since the shape and size of Strip and Card are different, the same cannot be taken as comparable goods. Shri K. K. Banerjee, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants also relies on the following case laws in support of the case of the appellants :

(2.) SHRI Manish Kumar, ld. JDR appearing for the Department states that the Department found the price declared by the appellants to be abnormally low and the same was only about 15% of price of similar import. He states that the website of the supplier itself indicated the value of the goods and the declared price was less than 25% of the quoted price. He argues that the price of contemporaneous import and the details available from the manufacturers own website, were used only in the context of Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 to form a view that there was every reason to doubt the truth and accuracy of the declared value rendering the same liable for rejection under the said Rule. Thereafter, the Department has proceeded to redetermine the value as provided under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 as other Rules could not be applied in the absence of value of the goods which could meet the test of exact comparison.

(3.) SHRI Manish Kumar, ld. JDR also states that such valuation is perfectly in accordance with the Customs Valuation Rules. The duty has to be collected on proper value of the goods and not at an abnormally low value declared by the importers. He also states that the Pregnancy Test Strip of the same manufacturer i.e. M/s Blue Cross Biomedical (Beijing) Co. Ltd., China, which are readily available in the local market reveals that the printed maximum retail price of the same is Rs. 35/ -. Sample produced by the ld. DR shows Batch No. NCD -77/06 dated 23 -8 -06. According to the ld. DR, the market price of Rs. 35/ - when compared to the declared price of Re.0.91 paisa per piece clearly goes to show that the value has been grossly under -declared by the appellants for Customs purposes. The Department relies on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rajkumar Knitting Mills - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 292 (S.C.) and various other decisions of the Apex Court and the Tribunal which hold that the Customs authorities are right in rejecting the declared value which are totally unrealistic as was held in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Shibani Engineering Systems - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 453 (S.C.).