Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Durga Marketing And Video Audio ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 11 June, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(139)ELT107(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The question for consideration in these appeals is the value for purpose of assessment of electronic components imported by each of the appellants. These goods consist of trimpots, which are stated to be a variety of potentiometer and of various transistors and in the case of appeal 426, of switches. In both cases, the basis for enhancing the valuation is the local market price of such goods as certified by the Electronic Components Industries Association (ELCINA). The Additional Commissioner purports to make deductions of various elements from the market price of the goods in order to arrive at the assessable value of the goods. His reasoning runs thus: The elements comprise 191% of the cif value of the goods. Therefore, if cif value is Rs. 100/-, the goods will be sold at Rs. 291/-, giving a ratio of 342 to 1 between the cif and the market price. Applying this ratio to the market price to 450 per unit, namely given for the goods in each of the appeal to be arrived at.
2. There are two grave objections to accepting this logic. This first is that the various post importation expenses that the Additional Collector proposed to reduce are not based upon any material but purely on assumptions made by him. While, no doubt, figures of import duty and octroi can be determined on the basis of actuals, it is not possible for us to accept blindly without any material in support whatsoever, figures that he has taken towards margin of profit, transportation charges, miscellaneous expenses etc. Secondly, even assuming these figures to be correct,we are unable to see how the value has been arrived at. We will consider for his purpose appeal 425. The total number of goods imported is 39000 approx. Of this, deduct the value sought to be applied to be 15293 basis. Apply the figure of Rs. 153/- per piece, we should get 153 x 15293 = Rs. 23.39 lakhs approx. The value of the consignment in total is enhanced to Rs. 4.02 lakhs. Neither the show cause notice, nor the order of the Additional Collector, nor the Commissioner (Appeals) throws any light on the discrepancy and the departmental representative, after several attempts to reconcile it, is helpless. For this reason, it has to be concluded that the value purportedly derived from the sale prices furnished by ELCINA is in fact without any basis.
3. In some other cases, the value has been sought to be enhanced on the basis of comparable prices. The same objection would hold true with regard to NE555 from the sale price given by ELCINA of Rs. 6/-, the Additional Collector has arrived at the cif value at Rs. 2/-. Value of trimpot has been increased applying the import of identical goods made by Allied Electronics from Singapore at about the same time in both the appeals. The counsel for the appellants contends that the figures imported by Video Audio Services is higher - 45000, as against the quantity imported by Allied Electronics - 32000. The contention with regard to other appeal, where the quantity imported is lower 20,000, is that since there was a purchase of all other items also. This argument is clearly unacceptable. Invoice value is arrived at on the basis of unit price and the price quoted is not a single price for the entire consignment. We also do not find the quantity imported by Video Audio Services is so substantially higher as to justify lower price. We therefore confirm the finding with regard to.
4. In the case of appeal 425, the goods are integrated circuits, transformers and switches. The Additional Collector has relied upon a quotation of M/s Sanyo Shin-nichi Electronic Device (Hong Kong) Ltd. it is well settled that a mere quotation by itself is insufficient evidence on which to base the assessable value. Numerous decisions of the Tribunal have held that the price to be applied to be which are actually imported. In additional, the quotation relied upon is not for the same goods but for a different model.
5. This is also the position with regard to various items in appeal 426. Here the Additional Collector has sought to compare value of transistor and switches of difference numbers with those of imported. He is attempted to meet the objection of the importer. This comparison of the dissimilar goods by showing that they are same type of goods. This is no answer at all. This is somewhat like comparing a Maruti a Mercedes Benz by saying that both are motorcares. The type of electronic component would depend upon its particular feature and each component is given a different serial number to distinguish from others. It is therefore not proper to compare say, transistor of the model C-4038 with transistor of model C4006 on the ground that they are both transistors. Therefore the demand for duty on potentiometer cannot be sustained nor their confiscation. Accordingly the redemption fine and penalty in each appeal is reduced to Rs. 5000/-.
6. The matter would ordinarily have to be remanded for determining the duty payable. However, the counsel for the appellants contended that the goods have been sold during the pendency of the appeal. If that is the case, the appellants may be entitled to the proceeds of the sale less the total of the expenses of the sale.