1984 (12) TMI 315 - AT - Customs

Import license held by appellants valid under prior Import Policy. Customs failed to prove under-valuation. Collector's decision unsustainable.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on both issues. Firstly, the Tribunal found that the import license held by the appellants was valid for the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the import licence.2. Justification of the revised assessable value by the Collector.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Import Licence:The appellants imported a consignment of spark plugs and declared its C.I.F. value as Rs. 98,728/-. They claimed clearance of the goods against import licence No. 2030377, dated 5-4-1983. The Customs issued two show cause notices alleging that the licence was a split-up stock and sale licence, which was not valid for the goods imported as per the Policy of April to March, 1984. The Customs considered the goods liable to confiscation. The appellants argued that the new Import Policy for A.M. 83-84 came into effect on 15-4-1983 and did not have retrospective effect. They contended that their licence was valid as it was revalidated on 9-8-1983 till 28-2-1984.The Tribunal noted that the split-up licence was issued on 5-4-1983 and revalidated on 9-8-1983 till 28-2-1984. The Public Notice No. 9, dated 31-3-1983, indicated that the Import and Export Policy for April 1983 - March 1984 would be announced on 15-4-1983. The Tribunal found that the provisions of the new policy did not come into effect from 1st April 1983 but from 15-4-1983. Therefore, applying the provisions of Para 383(i) to the licence produced by the appellants was incorrect. The Tribunal held that the licence produced by the appellants covered the importation, resolving the first issue in favor of the appellants.2. Justification of the Revised Assessable Value by the Collector:The Customs alleged under-valuation of the imported goods, stating that the declared price was lower than the price quoted by the manufacturers. The Collector fixed the value of the goods at US $0.40 per piece based on a Bill of Entry filed by M/s. Anand Motors, Delhi, in 1981. The appellants contended that the importation by M/s. Anand Motors did not take place at the time of their importation and that the goods were not identical or similar. They argued that they had produced all relevant documents, and the department failed to substantiate their allegations.The Tribunal noted that the appellants produced proforma invoice, sales note, letter of credit, regular invoice, and certificate of origin at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal found that the appellants could not be blamed for not producing the original invoice of the manufacturer sent to the trading agency. The Tribunal observed that the Customs did not file any catalogue or price list of the manufacturer to show under-valuation. The evidence relied upon by the Customs, i.e., the importation by M/s. Anand Motors in 1981, was not contemporaneous with the appellants' importation in 1983. The Tribunal held that the Customs failed to disprove the documents produced by the appellants and that the evidence relied upon by the Customs was not acceptable.The Tribunal concluded that under-valuation of the imported goods was not proved, and the Collector's order in this regard was not sustainable. The appeal was accepted, resolving the second issue in favor of the appellants.