AMN INDIA LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above mentioned Four (4) Appeals were taken up together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that certain Bills of Entry were filed in the name of the Appellants on the strength of additional licence issued to them as Export House. The Bills of Entry with regard the truth and contents of the description and value was signed by Shri R.N. Kapoor of M/s. India Agencies as per Power of Attorney holder of the above firms. In the case of M/s. AMN India, the Power of Attorney was given to Shri P.N. Khanna who, in turn, authorised M/s. India Agencies to act on behalf of the importing firm. All the Bills of Entry related to import of Industrial Sewing Machines from 2 Suppliers, viz. M/s. Pegasus Sewing Machines Manufacturing Co. Limited of Japan and M/s. Juki (Hongkong) Limited, Hongkong. Importers were in the name of M/s. AMN India and M/s. Zoro Garments. M/s. Oceanic Exports imported sewing machines from M/s. Juki. The issues involved in all the aforesaid imports are more or less similar except the name of importers and suppliers being different in the case of M/s. Oceanic Exports. Show Cause Notice was issued asking them to explain as to why the values declared by them should not be enhanced; why the lower values declared should not be treated as a deliberate attempt to evade payment of duty and why it should not be treated that the imports under the additional licence in the name of individual firms operated through a power of attorney contravene imports licence provisions as laid down in para 118(2) of the Import Export procedures and why the goods should not be confiscated Under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why a penalty should not be imposed on the appellants.

(3.) DURING the course of investigations, officers recovered price list dated 26 -6 -1987 of M/s. Pegasus Sewing Machines Mfg. Co. Ltd. issued to M/s. India Agencies and also a proforma invoice issued by M/s. India Agencies and invoices of M/s. Pegasus Sewing Machines Mfg. Co. Ltd. for identical machines during the relevant period. The printed price lists of M/s. Juki (Hongkong) Limited was also recovered from M/s. India Agencies. The Appellants submitted that the allegations for enhancement of prices are based on surmises and conjectures. It was urged by the Appellants that the value can be determined Under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act and other valuation rules; that Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules cannot be straightaway resorted to; that the prices of industrial sewing machines cannot be based only on the printed price lists as there was tough competition for this item and that the prices were negotiated and discounts obtained; that simply because some invoices showed higher value, that does not automatically become the correct and ordinary value for purposes of Section 14(1)(a); that according to the Departmental instructions, 10% difference in prices can be accepted and they cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Bombay Tyre International and submitted that this judgment is very much valid in their case in regard to differential approach in valuation by a manufacturer and that it was not necessary that the discount should always be uniform to all purchasers. The adjudicating authority, after hearing the submissions and perusing the records, ordered enhancement of the value of all the machines imported by the 3 importers under six Bills of Entry. He also ordered confiscation of machines imported by M/s. AMN India and M/s. Zoro Garments Under Section 111(m) and 111 (d). He imposed personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - each on M/s. AMN India and M/s. Zoro Garments and M/s. Oceanic Exports and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - on M/s. India Agencies Under Section 112(1) of Customs Act, 1962. Being aggrieved by this order, the Appellants have filed the captioned Appeals before us.