Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Techno Marketing vs Commissioner Of Customs on 18 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(91)ECC659, 2004(164)ELT113(TRI-DEL)
ORDER C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The case is before us for the second time.
2. The issue involved in this case is the valuation of goods of 'Sony' and 'Pioneer' brands imported by the appellants in May, 2000. The import was from a trader in Dubai. The Customs authorities directed the appellants to produce manufacturers' invoice in support of the value declared in the invoice. They were not able to produce the same. Accordingly, assessment was undertaken after rejecting the invoice price. The goods were provisionally assessed to duty of Rs. 4,27,236/- as against the duty of Rs. 1,82,883/- imposable based on the invoice price. Subsequently, when the assessment was finalized, duty of Rs. 11,35,838/- was determined on a further enhancement of the value of the goods. When the matter was taken up in appeal before the Eastern Bench of this Tribunal at Kolkata, a grievance was made that the finalisation of assessment has been done without taking into account the evidence produced by the appellants with regard to contemporaneous import. The Tribunal thereupon remanded the case for fresh consideration after taking into account all the evidences in the matter. The order impugned before us in the present appeal was passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta pursuant to that order of remand. In effect, the present order has confirmed the valuation made in the earlier order. Evidence produced by the appellants regarding contemporaneous import was rejected on the ground that those imports related to either a much earlier period or of unbranded goods.
3. Misc. Application No. C/M/210/2003-NB(A) seeks permission to submit additional evidence. The same is allowed and this order is being passed after considering the said materials.
4. The grievance of the appellants in the present proceedings is that the valuation adopted is contrary to the standard values adopted for assessment in the Bombay Customs House. During the hearing of the case, the ld. Counsel has brought to our notice that the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai has forwarded under his letter dated 11-1-2003 the valuation in respect of various brands of imported loudspeakers. It is also pointed out that this has been done after considering the information about prices collected by the various Customs formations. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the prices indicated in that Circular constitutes the reasonable basis for valuation of the goods and that the valuation carried out in the impugned order being very much in excess of the prices indicated in the letter of the Commissioner (Import), Mumbai, the duty demand is required to be set aside.
5. We have perused the records and heard both the sides.
The valuation is being canvassed based on letter dated 11-1-2001 of the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The letter states in detail the slab prices noted by various formations like the DRI, the Customs Preventive, Mumbai and has worked out a norm for valuation of various brands of loudspeakers. Sony and Pioneer are also brands covered by this letter. Since the values indicated in this letter have been arrived at after considering the prices observed in trade as well as from other sources and the prices are also indicated size wise and brand wise, the prices indicated in the Circular should commend itself for adoption in cases of doubt. We, therefore, are in agreement with the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the valuation of the present consignment also is required to be done based on the values indicated in that letter. It is agreed by both sides that the duty of Rs. 4,27,236/-paid by the appellants at the time of provisional release of the goods is more than the duty payable based on the Mumbai valuation. In view of the above, the additional duty demand made cannot be sustained.
6. The impugned order has also confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,75,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. It is the appellants' contention that these actions were not justified in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the prices declared by them constituted the transaction value. Further, no mis-declaration of model/type of the product under import had been made. Ld. Counsel for the appellants points out that specific model nos. for the loudspeakers had been mentioned in the transaction invoice.
7. We are of the view that the present is not a case where confiscation and imposition of penalty were justified. The appellants had declared model nos. of the loudspeakers in question. The goods were also in packings which gave their identity as of the brands in question.
8. In view of our findings above, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the additional duty demand, confiscation and penalty.