Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
African Trading Co. (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 27 June, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1993(64)ELT497(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.V. Maruthi, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal No. S/49-6/82 SUB of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dated 23rd October, 1982.
2. The appellants imported a consignment of 133 bags containing 3724 kgs. of Star Aniseed Chinese FAQ and declared the value at Rs. 49,163/- CIF Bombay under bill of entry dated 3rd February, 1981. On 7th September, 1981 the business premises of the appellants was searched and certain documents were recovered. The statement of the Director namely, Shri Mukesh Gopal Dass Dattani was recorded. On 19th December 1981 a show cause notice was issued proposing to determine the assessable value at Rs. 22/- per kg. CIF Bombay, as against the invoice/declared value of Rs. 13,05 per kg. CIF Bombay. On receipt of the reply the original authority confirmed the demand, the appeal to the Collector was rejected. Hence the appeal before us.
3. The Assistant Collector and the Collector while determining the assessable value of the imported goods at Rs. 22/- per kg. relied upon a statement of account of M/s. PRB Exports with the suppliers which indicated the price of Star Aniseed at Rs. 22/- per kg. in June/July 1981.
4. The appellants contended that the statements relied upon by the lower authorities relate to imports by vessels having containerised facility whereas the impugned imports are imported by a non-containerised vessel. The freight for container cargo is higher than the non-container cargo. Secondly, the goods in question are FAQ quality while the statement relates to whole quality goods. Thirdly, that the goods are supplied pursuance to the contract dated 24th April, 1980 whereas the statement relates to the goods which are imported in June/July, 81. Therefore, the statement of account relating to PRB Exports cannot be treated as contemporary import and the invoice price should be accepted.
5. As regards the contention that there is a difference in price on account of imports being made by non-containerised vessel, the appellants have not adduced any evidence as to how much is the difference in freight between containerised imports and imports by non-containerised vessel. In the absence of which we cannot accept this contention.
6. The second contention is that the goods are supplied pursuance to the contract i.e. 24th April, 1980 whereas the so-called contemporary imports are dated June/July, 1981. Even accepting that the contract relates to 24th April, 19811 under Section 14 of the Customs Act the value shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation or exportation, as the case may be, in the course of international trade-----. In other words if the price of similar goods on the date and place of import is available then the customs authorities are competent to determine the assessable value by adopting the said price disregarding the invoice price. In this case the price of contemporary imports of similar goods is available. Therefore, the customs authorities are justified in rejecting invoice value. As regards the quality of the goods from the order of the Collector it is evident that the appellants themselves admitted before the Collector that there was not much difference between the FAQ and whole variety. Before us the appellants have not adduced any evidence, how there is a difference between FAQ and whole variety of goods.
7. Therefore, we see no substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed.