TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (1) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessable value of a consignment of switches imported by the respondents herein. The brief factual background as set out in the impugned order is as follows :- "M/s. Ankit Audio Industries, (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) imported a consignment of "Switches DXT-15-8-1" (Rating 220 v and 2.5 Amps) of Chinese origin from Singapore under invoice number TT/387 dt. 30-10-1992. The value declared was Singapore $ 0.25/pc FOB. However, the Additional Collector enhanced the value of impugned goods to that of observed price in case of M/s. Sulabh Corporation after extending a quantity discount of 10% over the observed price. Aggrieved by this order the appellants preferred an appeal. This office set aside the order of the Additional Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... origin certificate for the first time in the de novo proceedings. The Collector (Appeals) however, sent the C.O. Certificate produced before him to the Addl. Collector for his comments. The Addl. Collector commented that it was significant that the C.O. Certificate had not been produced even during the first round of the case before Collector (Appeals) and he also doubted the authenti- city of the certificate as it bore signs of corrections in the name of suppliers con- tained therein. The Collector (Appeals) noted that Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 1988 requires that the identical goods should be same in all respects and should be from the same country of origin. But the Collector (Appeals) found that the Sulabh Corporation import was not fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fy the definition of identical goods under Rule 2(1)(e) of Valuation Rules, urged learned SDR. The Addl. Collector has also made due adjustment in the price arising out of difference in the quantity of goods in the Sulabh Corporation imports as per Valuation Rules. Collector (Appeals) in the Department's view has held Rule 5 of Valuation Rules inapplicable ignoring the evidence of the department regarding import of same goods at higher price. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents Shri J.S. Sinha urged that the certificate of origin relating to import by Sulabh Corporation has been now produced belatedly and is hence unacceptable. It is also at variance with the country of origin as Hongkong declared by Sulabh Corporation in the related ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kottukulam Engg. (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 380. The learned Counsel also pleaded that the goods had been lying uncleared for very long time and the Department should issue detention certificate to relieve demurrage charges. Learned SDR in reply however urged that this aspect does not arise at all for determination in this appeal. 5. The submissions made by the learned SDR and learned Counsel for the respondents have been carefully considered. It is found in this case that the Department has issued the show cause notice for enhancement of the value under Valuation Rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 read with Section 14(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962. Rule 5 of Valuation Rules cover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tches of the same model as the ones imported namely DXT-15S-1 by Sulabh Corporation within about four months of the import was much higher. The only difference was in quantity. The respondents imported 10,000 pieces and Sulabh Corporation import was 2000 pieces. The goods imported by the appellants are of Chinese origin and it has now been shown before us that Sulabh Corporation import was also of the same origin. It is not possible to accept the respondents' contention that the certificate of origin now produced being subsequent to clearance should be discarded. This is because all the particulars of the goods and of their time and mode of import tally with "Certificate of Origin-Re-export" which has been issued retrospectively by the Hong....