Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri Desai has argued that trade practice and commercial consideration are very important. Shri Desai had also filed written arguments. He reads the written arguments. Shri Desai has pleaded that the revenue wants to adopt assessable value for the purpose of assessment for the bearing imported by replacement users, and that the same value should be adopted in this case. He has referred to pages 121, 122 and 138 which pertain to analysis of imports by customer segments in 1981, January, 1982 to 30th January, 1983. He has pleaded that in the instant case there is only one importer and invoice price is the prima facie assessable value and the quantity is very material for the selling price. The burden is on the revenue. The revenue has to bring another canvasser on record for proving the same. He has pleaded that for the promotion of sales special discount has to be given. He has referred to the circular letter dated 28th January, 1981 which appears on page 72 of the paper book where it is mentioned that "Please note that the lists shall be used only in order to gain such business that cannot be obtained normally --new business." Similar is the position of the circular letter dated 22nd January, 1981 which appears on page 73 of the paper book. Shri Desai has pleaded that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence on record that the invoice price was the correct price. He has pleaded that 20% discount has been given and fairly stated that there is no mention of discount in the price list and in the pricing policy of the company of the respondents, larger discount was to be allowed where the quantity of the importation was much more. In support of his argument, he has referred to a note by Mr. H. Tully, Director on his visit to India which appears on pages 96 and 97 of the paper book. He has referred to the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and has also referred to the provisions of Sections 17 and 46(1) of the Customs Act. He has referred to para 17 of the order-in-original. At page 30 of the order-in-original the adjudicating authority has observed that: "I, therefore, find that the policy of selling additional volumes at higher discounts is totally within the ambit of the expression "in the course of international trade" of Section 14 ibid. It also does not by itself constitute any special interest between the seller and the buyer in the business of each other." He has pleaded that the invoice price is based on the pricing policy which is incorporated in the letters and telexes received from SKF Bearing Division, Sweden. He has argued that the department has got no contemporaneous evidence and as such invoice value has to be accepted. In support of his argument he has referred to the judgment in the case of Maheshwari Trading Corporation v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi reported in 1987 (29) ELT 739 (Tribunal) and judgment in the case of Gordon Woodroffe & Co. (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., Madras v. Collector of Customs, Madras reported in 1983 ELT 2380 (CEGAT) where it was held that in respect of a single buyer two different prices for two different consignments if based on commercial consideration was permissible. There can be different classes of customers based on well recognised commercial considerations and different classes would be entitled to invoice the goods at a different price. Shri Desai has stated that the allegations in the show cause notice are incorrect and in support of the same he has referred to internal pages 2, 3 and 4 of the reply to the show cause notice which appears on pages 33, 34 and 35 of the paper book. He has referred to SKF Distribution Net Work for Replacement Sector (seized file 'B' pages 18, 19 and file 'E' page 20 appearing on pages 186, 187 and 199 of the paper book). He has referred to the seized documents file 'E' pages 20, 23 and 24 appearing on pages 197, 198 and 199 of the paper book. He has pleaded that the seized documents are unsigned and the documents have been seized from the co-respondent and no reliance should be placed on the same. Shri Desai has argued that the judgment cited by the learned SDR in the case of Kollatra Abbas Haji v. Government of India and Ors. reported in 1984 (15) ELT 129 is not applicable in the respondent's case, as one of the respondents from whom the documents were seized was a co-respondent. Moreover, this is the judgment of the Kerala High Court which is not binding on the Delhi Tribunal. He has pleaded that the seized documents are unsigned and there are no comments by the senior officers. These documents cannot be looked into and relied upon by the revenue. He has pleaded that the price list and price levels are two different things. He has referred to page 28 of the paper book which deals with the price level order as on 26th March, 1983 and the respondents do not rely on this price level, and this price level calculation is by the Sweden Company, and the respondent cannot explain the same. The revenue has relied on the price level and it is for the department to prove what price level means. Shri Desai has argued that the exporter and the importer/indenting agent are not related persons and the allegation of the department that canvasser is the monopolist is also not correct. He has referred to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Gurgaon reported in 1987 (28) ELT 390, where the Tribunal had held that: "Mere holding of 26% equity shares by Suzuki in Maruti and proportional representation of Suzuki in Board of Directors of Maruti not amounting to mutuality of interest." He has also referred to another judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Albright Morarji and Pandit Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1987 (28) ELT 539 (Tribunal) where the Tribunal had held that: "There was no material to show that the appellants' company had any interest in the business of M/s. D.M.C. Co. Ltd., and vice-versa. The fact that M/s. D.M.C. held 30% shares in the appellants' company and two of the directors in both the companies were common, will not go to establish that they are related persons." The said judgment was based on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Atic Industries Ltd. reported in 1984 (17) ELT 323 (SC). Commenting on the judgments cited by the learned Senior Departmental Representative, he stated that Pradip Lamp case reported in 1977 ELT 130 is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the same is an excise matter. The wholesale cash price cannot be equated with three types of prices on commercial consideration. The judgment in the case of Macneill and Magor Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta reported in 1987 (27) ELT 129 (Tribunal) is also not applicable as the said judgment relates to penalty and not to valuation price and penalty was levied on the charge of under-invoicing. He has also stated that the following judgments cited by the learned SDR are not applicable (1) 1984 (18) ELT 203 (Delhi) - Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana v. Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and Ors.

(a) Pricing policy of the exporter has to be looked into.

(b) Quantity discount is based on commercial consideration.

(c) There can be different classes of customers.

(d) The mere fact that there is a single buyer for a particular category is not a ground for rejecting the invoice value and for a single buyer two different prices for different consignments are permissible if based on commercial consideration. Negotiated price on commercial considerations should not be rejected. Shri Desai, the learned Senior Advocate, further pleaded that the documents seized by the department are unsigned documents and no reliance should be placed on them.

17. In view of the above discussion we set aside the impugned order and direct the revenue authorities to fix the value as mentioned in price list No. 8102 dated 15th February, 1981 less 20% discount. During the course of arguments, Shri Desai, the learned senior advocate, had argued that no reliance should be placed on unsigned documents. As already discussed above, the genuineness of the price list is not doubted by the respondents. Neither side has placed any material on record as to the margin of profit. We are of the view that there is violation of provisions of Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. We direct the Collector of Customs to fix the quantum of fine and penalty keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the margin of profit.