Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Customs vs Modern Overseas on 7 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(184)ELT65(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. Revenue has filed this Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 279/2004, dated 13-10-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the charges of misdeclaration and enhancement of value of the goods imported by M/s. Modern Overseas.
2. Mrs. Krishna A. Mishra, learned Senior Departmental Representative, mentioned that the respondents filed Bills of Entry dated 21-7-2004 for clearance of "door locks" and "lock cylinders" and "lock accessories"; that the Additional Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 47/2004, dated 17-8-2004 confiscated the imported goods with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 3.50 lakhs, enhanced the value and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the ground that the goods declared by the respondents are nothing but cylindrical lock and NIDB data shows that cylindrical locks have been cleared at higher value; that, however, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, has set aside the Adjudication Order, holding that the imported goods were door locks and not cylindrical locks as per the Certificate from the foreign supplier M/s. Shivalaya (Hong Kong) Ltd. and All India Lock Manufacturers Association and that NIDB data is vague as it does not clarify that the loaded value is for stainless steel or brass or iron type locks.
3. The learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not stated the reasons for not accepting the Department's view that the imported locks are cylindrical locks; that the goods were identified as cylindrical locks on physical examination, that the market enquiry also confirmed the observation of the Department as regards nature of the goods and their value; that the Cylindrical locks displayed in the print out of Godrej Locks were similar to what had been ported in the present matter; that the respondents had not, produced any catalogue from the manufacturer. She finally submitted that the respondents had also not submitted the manufacturer's price list and catalogue; that on the other hand NIDB database showed value on higher side and as such the declared value was rightly rejected under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules.
4. On the other hand, Shri Chandrashekhar, learned Advocate, submitted that they had imported door locks and lock cylinders; that lock cylinder can be fitted in any lock and once lock cylinder is used in the manufacture of lock, such lock is called cylindrical lock which can be used as door lock, shutter lock, etc.; that they had submitted catalogue from the supplier to establish that they had imported only door locks and not cylindrical locks; that as such there is no misdeclaration on their part. He, further, submitted that NIDB data is vague and not in respect of the goods imported by the respondents; that an inference can not be drawn unless database is specific about the size of the lock.
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. There is substantial force in the submissions of the Respondent that lock cylinder is a component and its use in a lock makes that lock a cylindrical lock. The Revenue has not rebutted the said contention if the Respondents nor any material has been produced before us to show that the lock imported by the respondent were not door locks and were cylindrical locks. The Revenue has not controverted the findings in the impugned order that (1) catalogue of foreign supplier shows imported locks as door locks, and (ii) Certificates from the supplier and All India Lock Manufacturers Association certify the locks to be door locks. We also observe that the Revenue has taken a print out of Godrej Locks from Internet and compared the same with imported locks to reach the conclusion that the impugned locks are cylindrical locks. There is no physical examination of door locks imported vis-a-vis the cylindrical locks manufactured by M/s. Godrej. Thus we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the impugned door be door locks.
6.1 Regarding determination of value of the impugned goods also, Revenue has not brought any material to discard the findings in the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically observed that the "NIDB data is vague. It does not clarify that the loaded value of Rs. 52/- Per PC is for stainless steel or brass or iron type locks........it is a settled law that the transaction value can be rejected on the basis of reasonable and cogent evidence of contemporaneous import of identical/similar goods, having the same country of origin and import at same commercial level. In this case, it is not known whether the NIDB data is for identical goods, much less it does not reveal the same level of import. Therefore, this evidence suffers from basic flaws and can not be used as a legal ground for rejection of the transaction value.....Needless to stress that the onus is on the department to prove that the invoice value does not represent the true Commercial value in the international market."
6.2 We are in full agreement with the findings contained in the impugned Order. Merely non-production of manufacturer's invoice by the Respondents would not make the transaction value unacceptable. The initial onus is on the Revenue to show that the transaction value is not correct value. The Revenue has not succeeded in establishing that the declared transaction value is not correct. In view of this, we reject the Appeal filed by Revenue.