TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E No. 5770 dated 27-12-1988 5000 gross sets VT 3 36 to 85 of B/E No. 5771 dated 27-12-1988 86 to 119 of B/E No. 5770 dated 27-12-1988 10000 gross sets VT 2 120 to 194 of B/E No. 5771 dated 27-12-1988 195 to 232 of B/E No. 5770 dated27-12-1988 15000 gross sets It was alleged that the snap fasteners were imported in two consignments by misdeclaring the goods as rivets with a view to evading customs duty and clearing the goods against REP licence for rivets. The appellants had REP licence for rivets, but did not have licence for snap fasteners. Under Notification No. 224/85 dated 9-7-1985 as amended by Notification No. 290/87 decorative rivets were exempted from duty in excess of 40% plus 5% ad valorem with Nil additional duty of customs, whereas the duty on snap fasteners was 100% + 45% ad valorem plus 15% additional duty of customs. It was also alleged that the prices of Japanese brand "Kane-M" snap fasteners imported during the relevant time at Kandla Port were found to be as follows :- Type Made of Price per gross VT 2 Iron, Nickelled Top Vinyl coated Yen 147.50 VT 3 Iron, NKL Yen 150 VT 5 Iron, NKL Yen 170 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....misdeclared the description and value of the goods; (ii) Whether the goods were liable to confiscation; and (iii) Whether imposition of penalty was justified. The goods were described by the appellants as "Metal fittings rivets (rivets for leather goods)". They sought clearance of the goods against REP licence value for metal fittings/rivets and also claimed concessional rate of duty under notification. The goods were imported from the same foreign supplier by the same vessel. For clearance of the goods, two Bills of Entry were filed at Kandla Custom House on 12-1-1989. Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the impugned order show that the goods were examined by the officers at Kandia Custom House on 12-1-1989 and on examination the same were found to be "Snap fasteners" and not "Rivets". It is also stated therein that each snap fastener is made of 4 pieces, i.e. top, socket, stud and post. The imported snap fasteners were found to be of 3 different sizes of "Swallow-RK" brand. In paragraph 1.2 of the impugned order, it has been stated that the two Bills of Entry taken together 35 cartons containing 5000 gross sets of size No. VT-5 snap fasteners were imported. In cartons No. 36 to 11....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the facts of the present case. In the case of Tarachand Gupta & Bros., the respondents therein imported parts and accessories of Mopeds, except tyres, tubes and saddles against the specific licence for import of parts and accessories of motor cycle and scooter issued under Entry 295 of Section II of Part IV of Schedule I of the Import Trade Control Policy for the period July-December, 1956. The Customs Authorities held that the goods were not imported as spare parts, but as complete vehicle in a knocked down condition and hence not covered by the import licence produced. Without tyres and tubes, motor cycles and scooters are not complete articles. Therefore, it could not be said in that case that the respondents imported Moped in C.K.D. condition. In paragraph-12 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "Apart from that the goods in question did not admittedly contain tyres, tubes and saddles, so that it was impossible to say that they constituted motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition". Supreme Court, therefore, held that the import was covered by the import licence produced by the respondent's therein. In the present case the facts are not similar. The Col....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Works. In the case of Susha Electronic Industries v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, reported in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 585, certain components of T.V. were imported in one consignment at Kandia Port. Some other components were imported in two consignments at Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad. Customs Authorities clubbed together the goods of all the three consignments and held that those constituted complete television sets, and hence were not permissible to be imported under O.G.L. or against the licence produced. In the present case, as already indicated by us, the goods were imported at the same port, by the same vessel and by the same importer. The facts are, therefore, different from those of Susha Electronic Industries. Similarly, the facts in the case of Janta Traders, Bombay, are also distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 6. The action of Collector in clubbing the goods covered by two Bills of Entry is supported by the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Girdharilal Banshidhar v. Union of India, reported in 1964 (7) S.C.R. Page-62 = 1984 ECR 491 (not cited by either of the parties before us). In the said case, the appellants were granted a licence to imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by either of the parties before us. 7. In the light of the above discussions, we hold that the Collector was right in clubbing the goods imported by the appellants in the two bills of entry and in coming to the conclusion that the imported goods were snap fasteners and not rivets. In the circumstances, we hold that there has been clear misdeclaration of the description of the goods in the bills of entry. 8. For valuation of the impugned goods, the Collector has compared the declared value namely, Japanese Yen 90 per gross set (45 Yen for 2 pieces) with the price of "Kane-M" brand snap fasteners of M/s. Morito Co. Ltd. Japan as per price list dated 17-12-1987. This price list was valid up to July, 1988. The price of VT-2, VT-3 and VT-5 sizes of "Kane-M" brand snap fasteners have been given in paragraph 1.4 of the impugned order as follows :- TYPE MADE OF PRICE PER GROSS SET VT 2 Iron, Nickelled Top Vinyl coated Yen 147.50 VT 3 Iron, NKL Yen 150 VT 5 Iron, NKL Yen 170 Under Rule 8(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, the Collector has adopted the above prices for valuation of the appellants' ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined under reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and on the basis of data available in India". In the absence of any contemporary importation of similar goods, the Collector has adopted a reasonable means to determine the assessable value of the impugned goods. The learned advocate's objection to the valuation adopted by the Collector under Rule 8 (1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 is, therefore, rejected. Having regard to the above, we hold that there has been mis-declaration of value of "Snap fasteners" imported by the appellants. 8A. Paragraph-8.0 of the impugned order shows that the appellants produced an import licence which was valid for import of metal fittings other than zip/snap fasteners. It is also stated in that paragraph that snap fasteners could be imported only to the extent of 10% of the licence value. As the licence so produced was Rs. 3,65,400/-, they could import snap fasteners to the extent of Rs. 36,540/- only. The licence, therefore, did not cover the goods imported in the two bills of en....