Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Proceedings were held before the Appraiser of Customs air cargo complex Bangalore for verification of the goods and their valuation etc. and the statements of the company's Managing Director Sh. Sadanand were also recorded on 11.2.87.10.3.87 and 18.3.87 under Sec. 108 of the Act. The Collector of Customs issued a notice to the company under Sec. 124 of the Act on 4.3.87 relating to the first consign- ment. In the said notice it was stated that 4 items were not covered by the licence and the same were liable for confis- cation. However. on 30.3.87 the Collector issued another notice in supersession of the earlier notice dated 4.3.87. Notice was also issued on the same date in respect of bill of entry dated 11.3.87. By the said notices the Collector proposed to enhance the value of the goods imported and further proposed to confiscate the entire goods imported and also to levy a fine and other penalties. The company was accused of misdescription of the goods, misdeclaration of value, suppression of the relationship with the suppliers, suppression of the place of origin of goods etc. The Collector by his order dated 13.4.87 decided all the points against the company. The Collector held that the quotations given by M/s. Shun Hing Technology Ltd. along- with the application for approval of their PMP during July 1986 should be taken as the correct value of the goods imported. and the plea of the company that it had received a special discount in view of the bulk purchases and promise of future purchases was not accepted. The Collector in these circumstances determined the price of the goods at Rs.7,15,485 for the purposes of Sec. 14(1) of the Act. The Collector thus held that there was a misdeclaration of the value to the tune of Rs.6,15,873 and the duty payable there- on would be Rs.10.96,228.20p. The Collector further held that the entire goods imported were liable to confiscation under Sec. 111(m) of the Act. The Collector also held that the goods imported were fully finished copiers in SKD/CKD form and as such there was a misdeclaration that the import- ed goods were only parts of the copiers. The Collector also held that description of most of the items in the invoices had been deliberately manipulated to suit the description in the licence. The goods covered by three bills 2044, 2045 and 2046 were held to be one consignment and one AWB and thus viewed as one consignment, it amounted to the import of ten copiers. The goods imported under the 4th bill No. 4993 were four fully finished copiers in SKD/CKD form. The Collector further held that in terms of note (i) to Imports Control Order. 1955 and Customs Tarrif Act, 1975, these goods will be deemed to be filly assembled copiers for the purpose of valuation and licence. Thus the goods imported as fully assembled copiers were not permissible to be imported and this was a clear violation of the Act and the terms of the licence. It was also held in the alternative that even if all the parts imported were viewed individually, none of the items tally with the licence. The Collector in this regard gave detailed reasons for arriving at this conclu- sion. The Collector also held that the value of the parts imported for the purposes of Sec. 14(1) of the Act would be Rs.5,63,332 whereas the importers were permitted to import goods worth Rs.4,94,500. There was thus an excess of Rs.68,832 and as such the goods were liable to confiscation under Sec. III(d) of the Act. The Collector in these circum- stances passed an order for confiscation of the entire goods with an option to the company to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs.3 lacs. The Collector also imposed a fine of Rs.1 lac on the company and Rs. 1 lac on Sh. Sadanand the Manag- ing Director of the Company.

The company filed two appeals aggrieved against the common order of the Collector relating to both the notices and a separate third appeal was preferred by the Managing Director before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed all the three appeals by a common order dated 31.10.88. The company and the Managing Director aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal have filed the above mentioned three appeals before this Court.

One of the arguments raised before the Tribunal was that the Collector erred in treating SKD/CKD parts of the copiers imported, as assembled copiers, for the purpose of Schedule I to the Imports (Control) Order. 1955 and the case Union of India v. Tarachand Gupta & Bros., AIR 1971 SC 1558 applied on all force to the instant case. The Tribunal in this regard set aside the finding recorded by the Collector and placing reliance on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Misuny Electronic Works, [1987] 30 ELT, 345 held that one has to look into the re- spective licence and not to the fact that if all the con- signments covered by all the bills of entry are assembled together, there will be complete machines. The Tribunal, however, upheld the other findings recorded by the Collector to the effect that even if all the imported parts contained in SKD/CKD packs of copiers were viewed individually the licence produced was not valid for any of the items import- ed. The. Tribunal thus held that the Collector was right in holding that the imported goods were not covered by the valid licence. The Tribunal also held that the Collector was right in rejecting the price shown by the company in the invoices. The Tribunal also rejected the contention made by the counsel for the company that the valuation made by the Collector was exorbitant. As regards the question of imposing fine and penalty also the Tribunal found the order of the Collector as correct. and did not find any cogent reason to interfere in the order of the Collector.

kong. The goods covered by these bills of entry are ten numbers copiers in SKD/CKD condition, accessories, spares, consuma- bles and excess items. The goods covered by the 4th bill of entry are four numbers copiers in SKD/CKD condition and consumables. the licence produced is valid for certain components and is not valid for fully assembled copiers. The fully assembled copiers are the end products of the import- ers and hence cannot be imported by them. Plain Paper Copi- ers are electronic equipments.

"Under entry 295, except for rubber tyres and tubes for whose import a separate licence could be obtained under entry 41 of Part V, there are no limitations as to the number or kind of parts or accessories which can be imported under a licence obtained in respect of the goods covered thereunder. Prime facie, an importer could import all the parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters and it would not be a ground to say that he has committed breach of entry 295 or the licence in respect of the goods described therein, that the parts and accessories imported. if assem- bled, would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition. 3There are no remarks against entry 295. as there are against entry 294, that a licence in respect of goods cov- ered by entry 295 would not be valid for import of spares and accessories which, if assembled, would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition. Apart from that, the goods in question did not admittedly contain tyres. tubes and sad- dles, so that it was impossible to say that they constituted motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition. The first two could not be imported and were in fact not imported because that could not be done under the licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 which expressly prohibited their import and a separate licence under entry 41 of Part V would be necessary. The third, namely. saddles were not amongst the goods imported. No doubt, there was, firstly, a finding by the Collector that a trade practice prevailed under which motor cycles and scooters without tyres, tubes and saddles could be sold. Secondly. the tyres and tubes could be had in the market here and so also saddles, so that if an importer desired, he could have sold these goods as motor cycles and scooters in CKD condi- tion. The argument was that since there was a restriction in entry 294 against imports of motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition, the importer could not be allowed to do indirectly what he could not do directly.