Per C.N.B. Nair :

These appeals are directed against duty demands and penalties imposed under order in original No. 27/ADJ/Skas/2001 dated 28.3.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Gen.), New Delhi. The appellant M/s. Iron Master India Pvt. Ltd. imported 7 consignments of Casio brand musical instruments during the period June, 1997 to September, 1998. The impugned order has held that the imported goods had been undervalued causing of short levy of customs duty of over Rs. 21 lakhs Duty demand and penalties are consequent to this finding.

2. The only material relied upon for reaching a finding regarding undervaluation is the price of comparable goods imported by M/s. Jay International. While the appellant's imports were at Delhi, the imports of Jay International were carried out at Bombay.

3. The appellants have contested the findings and duty demand on merits as well as on the issue of time bar. On the issue of time bar, the appellant's submissions is that the demand in respect of 6 out of the 7 consignments has been raised beyond the normal time limit, even though none of the factors (collusion, willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by the importer etc.) permitting the raising of demand of the extended period was present in the instant case. Only in the case of import under bill of entry No. 000165 dated 18.9.98 the demand is within time limit since the original clearance of the goods was on provisional assessment. The appellants have submitted that they were regularly importing the musical instruments from the authorized dealer of the Japanese manufacturer and they had declared the transaction values in the import documents and those declarations were in conformity with the purchase price shown in the invoices. Thus there was no mis-declaration or mis-statement of facts to evade payment of correct amount of duty. They have, therefore, urged that the demand in respect of Bills of Entries other than bill of entry No. 000165 dated 18.9.98 is required to be set aside on the ground of time bar alone.

4. With regard to the duty demand in respect of goods covered by bill of entry No. 000165 dated 18.9.98, the appellant's submission is that the reassessment carried out in the impugned order is contrary to legal provisions relating to valuation of imported goods. It has been emphasized that there was no evidence what-so-ever indicating that the prices declared by the appellant were not the transaction values. No evidence showing additional payments for the goods manipulation of documents exist. They have submitted that it is settled law that transaction value should be accepted for assessment of the goods unless such value falls in the category of exceptions stipulated in the Valuation Rules themselves. The appellants have also pointed out that import of goods at a higher value by some other importer is no criterion for rejection of the transaction.

5. Apart from the above legal position, the appellant has also submitted that the material relied upon by the Commissioner, comparable value of certain varieties of musical instrument imported by M/s. Jay International, was not sufficient for revision of assessable value. It has been emphasized in particular that comparable value was not available for several varities like CTK 501, CTK 520L, CTK 620L, WK 1200, CTK 401, CTK 511, CTK 601, CTK 485 and CTK 611 imported by the appellant under Bill of Entry No. 000165. The appellants have pointed out that the Commissioner has fixed the assessable value of such items also by resorting to "average loading of other models", a procedure not contemplated under the valuation provisions. The appellants have also submitted that the procedure adopted by the adjudicating authority was also not fair or just inasmuch as the appellants were not given copies of the invoices of comparable imports by M/s. Jay International. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel for the appellants also pointed out that the price comparison was also not