Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd., Bombay had imported 24 consignments of "SKF" brand ball bearings type Nos. 6201, 6201/Z. 6201/ZZ, 6202/Z/6203, 6203/Z, 6203/ZZ. The imports were effected on the basis of orders booked by indenting agents M/s. Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. at the instance of one of their canvassers, namely, M/s. Punjab Bearing Traders. The bearings have been supplied by M/s. SKF, Italy/Germany, two of the overseas suppliers of M/s. Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. All the 24 bills of entries were filed by the clearing agents M/s. M.A. Sadrani CHA 11/357 on behalf of the importer. The said bills of entries were noted during November, 1982 and January, 1983 and presented to the dealing assessing group in August, 1983 for the purpose of assessment and clearance. The clearances of the bearings were sought against 22 import licences. On or about 22nd June, 1983 pursuant to certain information, the officer of the Enforcement Directorate carried out searches at the following premises :-

5A. The revenue being not satisfied with the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay has come in appeal before the Tribunal.

6. Shri V.M. Doiphode, the learned SDR who has appeared on behalf of the revenue, has reiterated the facts. He has pleaded that the last date of hearing before the adjudicating authority was 4th February, 1985 and the adjudication order is dated 19th April, 1985. Shri Doiphode has stated that Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. were the indenting agents of M/s. SKF Overseas Bearings Division, Sweden, and Punjab Bearing Traders were their canvassers for M/s. Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. vide letter dated 11th May, 1982. The orders were placed by the canvassers M/s. Punjab Bearing Traders in July, 1982, and in turn Skefko India Bearing Co. placed with SKF Bearings Division, Sweden, and at the time of placing of the orders, there was in existence a price list No. 8102 dated 15th February, 1981 and bearing Nos. 6201, 6202 and 6203, 6201Z, 6201ZZ and similar other bearings were operating in the price list. The foreign suppliers after the receipt of the order placed by the indenting agents had duly acknowledged the order and after the arrival of the consignments, invoices were issued in favour of the importers, M/s. Mirah Exports and the rate of commission was 3%. In the price list there was no indication of any kind of discount. The 20% discount was discretionary and the same was not admissible under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. More than 20% discount was given by SKF and the respondents call it as a special discount. The learned SDR further argued that the price at which the goods were sold to the respondents after giving a discount of 20% could not be called a price at which the goods were ordinarily sold. Shri Doiphode argued that discount was not admissible and the question arises whether there can be different prices under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. He has also referred to the letter appointing M/s. Punjab Bearing Traders as canvassers, which appears on page 200 of the respondents' paper book. Shri Doiphode has referred to the various documents incorporated in his paper book. Shri Doiphode has argued that under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 there cannot be a special price. In particular, he has referred to the pricing policy of the respondents which appears on pages 103 and 104 of the paper book. The pricing policy of the company was where the maximum of 20% discount was not sufficient to meet the competitive situation, the indentors were to refer to the Overseas Supplying Company requesting a special net price, and this could lead to a number of prices being issued at the same time depending on the circumstances and the availability of the product at the time of offering or the noted delivery date. Shri Doiphode has argued that the respondent himself has accepted the same. He has also referred to the various observations made by the adjudicating authority in his order and has also referred to the statement of Shri P.R. Khanna, Sales Manager which appears on page 105 of the paper book. Shri Doiphode has argued that the discount given by Skefko India Bearing Co., indenting agent, is a special discount and is at their discretion and the price charged by the indenting agent was not the normal price. It was a special price. The learned Additional Collector has mentioned this special discount as a quantity discount. Shri Doiphode has argued that this discount is not a quantity discount. Many other factors are involved. The order was placed by M/s. Punjab Bearing Traders, the canvassers, the goods have been imported by Mirah Exports and the value of the invoice cannot be different value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the SKF never claimed that for the equivalent price the same price was charged from others. The costing which has been done by the Addl. Collector in his order is not relevant. He has also argued that the realtionship of M/s. Mirah Exports, the importers with others was not important. He has further argued that while passing the adjudicating order, the learned Addl. Collector should have considered all the seized documents. The same has not been done. He has further stated that the presumption under the law is that the seized documents were the correct documents. He has referred to para No. 10 of the Additional Collector's Order which deals with the documents. Shri Doiphode has argued that indenting agent had created a monopoly for its canvassers M/s. Punjab Bearing Traders, and in support of his argument he has referred to the letter written by M/s. Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. addressed to Punjab Bearing Traders which appears on page 200 of the paper book. He has referred to the letter dated 22nd June, 1982 addressed to Mr. Ulf seized from the premises of M/s. Associated Bearings which appears on page 173 and 174 of the respondents' paper book, and the said letter has been discussed on internal page 16 of the order-in-original where there is a reference to the monopoly imports by Vohra, and in the letter itself there is a mention that the goods are to be sold at throw away prices and the respondents objected to the admissibility of this letter on the ground that the same was not seized from the office premises of the appellant. The letter was not signed and whether there was any reply to the said letter and the writer of this letter should have been examined. He has also referred to pages 183, 186, 187 and 192 of the respondents' paper book which relates to SKF distribution net work and on page 192 there is a mention that the remaining five canvassers who account for over 70% of the import bearing business of this segment got preferential prices. He fairly stated that these documents are not signed. He has referred to the internal page 17 of the order-in-original. Sub-para 6 where it is mentioned that on pages 23, 24 and 25E for bearing 6202 where Punjab Bearing have got lower prices for 41,285 pieces and 88,650 pieces than for Vohra and Mehta (page 24) for 1,00,000 pieces @ Rs. 3.62. Shri Doiphode has argued that these documents were seized from the premises of M/s. Associated Bearing Co. Ltd., Bombay and trade unions, and these documents have to be accepted and this clearly reflects the price at which the bearings were sold to them. He has argued that the respondents have offered different prices and profits for Vohra and Vohra and Punjab Bearing Traders. In support of his argument, he has referred to page 171 of the paper book. This is page 40 of the file 'B' of the seized papers and page 172 deals with the special prices vs. market prices. He has also referred to pages 175 to 182 which is co-ordination between ABC and Skefko and page 33 of the seized file 'B' and a mention of the same is also in the order-in-original. This clearly shows that there was a complete co-ordination between ABC and Skefko. On page 179 of the respondent's paper book there appears integrated marketing policy of the company which is from file 'B' page 29 (seized documents). Shri Doiphode has argued that there is also charge of mis-declaration. He has referred at length to the pricing policy of the respondent and has argued that the discount given by the respondent is not quantity discount and under Section 14 of the Customs Act, there cannot be multiplicity of the prices. He has further argued that commission and discount are different.

(1) 1987 (29) ELT 889 - Auto Lamps Ltd., Delhi v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.
(2) 1987 (31) ELT 356 (Bombay) - Satellite Engineering Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

He has argued that SKF Sweden is a related person of Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. as 39.8% shares are held by the Sweden Company. Shri Doiphode has argued that the appeals filed by the revenue may be allowed and the four appeals filed by M/s. Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. may be dismissed.

12. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. In the matter before us, Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. are the indenting agents of SKF Bearing Division, Sweden and Punjab Bearing Traders are canvassers and Mirah Exports Pvt. Ltd. are the importers. The orders were placed in July, 1982 by Punjab Bearing Traders, the canvassers with Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. and SKF further placed order with the exporter, namely, SKF Overseas Bearing Division, Sweden. The orders were for ball bearing type Nos. 6201, 6202, 6203, 6201Z, 6201ZZ, etc. The respondents had filed the bills of entries, and in support of the valuation copies of the invoices were also filed. On or about 22nd June, 1983, pursuant to certain information, the officers of the Enforcement Directorate carried out the searches at the following premises :-

(i) M/s. Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd., M.G. Memorial Building, Netaji Sub-hash Road, Bombay - 400 002.
(ii) M/s. Associated Bearing Co. Ltd., Hoechest House, Nariman Point, Bombay-400 021.
(iii) Shri Kishan Chand, 74, Somerset House, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay.

During the course of search, certain documents were taken over by the Enforcement Directorate. Among the other documents seized was the price list No. 8102 dated 15th February, 1981 which was also signed by the respondents vide covering letter FM 138 dated 8th September, 1983 of the revenue's paper book. During the course of investigation, SSIB of the Bombay Customs House had summoned Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. and Shri P.R. Khanna, Sales Manager and the statement of Shri Khanna was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It appears that Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. was the sole indenter in India for SKF Overseas Bearing Division representing sales of SKF on principal to principal basis. During the course of arguments, the learned SDR, Shri V.M. Doiphode has stated that SKF Overseas Bearing Division are holding 38.8% shares of SKF. Shri P.R. Khanna has stated that the price list which has been supplied to the Customs is the only price list which is operative for pricing policy for booking of the indents from customers in India and the Skefko India does not have any other price list issued by SKF for export from other markets. The issue to be decided in the present appeals is whether the invoice price is acceptable or not. The valuation has to be accepted in terms of provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 is reproduced below :-