Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, K.L. Rekhi, JJ.
Consolidated Coffee Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs, Bombay -Respondent
Order No. 114 of 1986-B2, 114 of 1986
Decided On : 18-02-1986
M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (J)
1. The facts in so far material, in this appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, transferred to be heard by the Tribunal as if it were an appeal before it pursuant to the provisions in S. 131-B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereinafter, the Act] are :
(a) after negotiation with the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, (an Undertaking of the Maharashtra State Government) as well as 'their principal M/s. Gunsuns Sortex Ltd., (of Fairfield Road, London, England) the appellant purchased and imported six nos. Sortex Electronic Colour Seperators (ex. demonstration machines in good condition) conforming to Model 425 together with recommended spares. The Bill of Entry was filed on 7-1-1982, declaring, inter alia, their aggregate assessable value to be Rs. 7,80,029/- ;
(b) a notice dated 10-5-1982 was issued to the appellant, alleging misdeclaration of the value and absence of Import Licence cover and consequently commission of offences under Section 111 (d) and (m) of the Act, and requiring the appellant to show cause as to why the goods in question should not be confiscated under Section 111 and a penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Act;
(c) in reply, the appellant submitted that :
(i) the basis for an allegation of misdeclaration of value was the manufacturer's international price list of August, 1979, wherein, the price of each of the six machines imported was shown to be £ 7920/-Sterling. Allowing a margin of 20% towards diminution in price on account of the fact the machines were used prior to import for demonstration purposes, the F.O.B. value of the six machines was worked out to be £ 38016/- as against £ 18000/- shown in the invoice and hence the charge of misdeclaration of value as well as import in excess of the licence ;
(ii) for a fact, however, the prices indicated in the list were subject to revision without notice and there is no basis or rationale for arriving at 20% demonstration discount ;
(iii) since it was a transaction where the buyer and seller had no interest in the business of each other, the price alone is the sole consideration and transaction itself genuine and should be accepted as such ;
(iv) the goods are to be valued for assessment of duty in terms of Rule 5(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules and the indentor's certificate showing the inclusion of the indentor's commission in the invoice value may be referred to in this context;
(d) in adjudication, it was held that :
(i) obviously, the goods were offered at a lower price since they were used for demonstration;
(ii) the international price list of the manufacturers shows the F.O.B. price of each machine to be £ 7920/-. Allowing a discount of 20% for demonstration, the F.O.B. value of six machines works out to £ 38016/- as against £ 18000/- declared, leading to an excess of £ 20016 (Rs. 3,48,680/-) and a shortfall in duty approximately in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- ;
(iii) the licence did not cover the excess of Rs. 3,48,680/-;
(iv) the licence also does not cover disposal goods ;
(v) there is no evidence of any extra remittance of foreign exchange, although the goods have been insured for 10% over and above the invoice price;
(vi) accordingly, the appraised value of £ 38016/- may be taken for assessment. Since, however, it "is an open market transaction between unconnected buyers and sellers where the indentors had also charged 20% commission" and the indentors are an Undertaking of the Government of the State of Maharashtra, "there is no reason to support any extra remittance of foreign exchange and as such, the invoice value may be debited to the licence produced on a warning".
(e) the appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, now heard by us, was the sequel.
2. Before us, it was contended for the appellant, inter alia, that--
(a) admittedly,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
