AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bay, India between 2nd to 4th November 1995 and to be returned after the exhibition." 2. The cameras imported at cost of Rs. 3,22,026/- by above bills of entry were sold for about Rs. 26.43 lakhs. Search of the appellant premises were made and certain documents were recovered. It emerged that appellants are exclusive agents of Hitachi Denshi Ltd., Japan for their entire range of products. The appellants were to negotiate sales with various purchasers like, Doordarshan India, BEL, Asianet, Gemini TV etc. In the search minutes of meeting between Mr.Nitin Shah of the appellants, Mr. G Fujiki of M/s.Sansho Co. Ltd., and Mr. K Osada of Hitachi Denshi was recovered. The said minutes also contained as an annexure the price list of Hitachi where prices of different products were mentioned. The prices were net ex-godown prices in Japanese Yen. The price of Z-ONE-D digital camera was quoted as 9,55,000 Japanese Yen. Also recovered in the search was an Estimate dated 30/08/95 of M/s.Hitachi Denshi Ltd. addressed to the appellants for various products including the Z-ONE-D Camera for Japanese Yen 9,55,000 per piece. Also recovered was a documents dated 03/08/85 of the appellant claiming that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttention of the Customs authorities from the alleged under invoicing of the imported goods. That instead of re-exporting the imported goods after exhibition the same were sold it to M/s.Gemini Television, Chennai for a sum of about Rs. 26.43 lakhs. It was alleged that as per Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 the value for the purpose of assessment should be transaction value, i.e. the price actually paid or payable for the goods sold for Export to India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the said rules. Under Rule 9 discounts are admissible if the same were shown as part of the agreement entered. Further, the discounts if any available to a particular importer by way of negotiations are admissible, provided it is not unusual in the course of international trade and the circumstances of the transaction justify a discount. It was alleged that in this case, the manufacturer's (M/s.Hitachi Denshi Ltd.) Price Lists dated 6/2/95 and 18/12/95 do not show any discount schedules. The only document which talks about discount is the estimate dated 30/08/95 of M/s.Hitachi Denshi Ltd. This estimate indicates a Special Discount of Japanese Yen 805,400 for purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta with regard to cost of production and cost overheads have been produced by the importers, Rule 7A is also not applicable. Therefore, the value has to be determined under Rule 8 read with Rule 9, using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of CVR read with Section 14 (1) of the Customs Act. It was asserted that the manufacturers (M/s.Hitachi Denshi Ltd., Japan) had published different Price Lists at different occasions. These were the price lists available to M/s.Sansho Co. Ltd., Japan, the authorized export agents of the manufacturers in Japan. Hence, the prices indicated in these price lists dated 8/2/95 and 18/12/95 (Appendix VI & VIII) were taken to indicate the actual prices of the Hitachi Z-ONE-D Camera systems and accessories imported by the Noticee M/s.Shimnit Machine Tools and Equipments Ltd., Mumbai under various Bills of Entry. These prices were taken to be the correct prices of imported goods under Rule 8 of CVR. Duty evaded on the basis of these arguments, for each bill of entry was worked to Rs. 55,95,830/-." On the basis of above a notice was issued; i) Seeking rejection and re-fixing of transaction value ii) Determination o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t value of goods imported in 1997 & 1998. It was argued that the valuation rules have to be sequentially applied. The learned Counsel argued that the rules 4, 5 6 & 7 have not been given due consideration before jumping to Rule 8. For this purpose he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of South India Television Vs CC Calcutta - 2007 (214) ELT 3 (SC). In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: 8. Before concluding, we may point out that in the present case at the stage of show cause notice, the Department invoked Rule 8 on the ground that the invoice submitted by the importer was incorrect. In Eicher Tractors (supra) this Court observed that Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules refers to the transaction value. Utilization of the word "the" as definite article indicated that what should be accepted as the transaction value for the purpose of assessment under the Customs Act is the price actually paid by the importer for the particular transaction, unless it is unacceptable for the reasons set out in Rule 4(2). In the said judgment, it has been further held that, the word "payable" in Rule 4(1) also refers to the "transaction value" a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but as regards canvassers and Skefko, who import in even greater bulk for the purposes of only trading, the policy envisaged that they may even secure lower price particularly if they generated additional volumes of sales. The documents seized during the search and seizure that were produced by the appellants before the Customs authorities (genuineness of which was accepted by the Addl. Collector of Customs) show that apart from Mirah Exports a number of other importers, namely, Skefko, Amul Engg., Krishna Engg. Works, Delhi, Jayaveer Forge, Davangere, Ajay Trading Co., Delhi, Ramgopal Lachmi Narayan, Bombay, Sanmukh Engineering Industries, etc. had also imported comparable quantities of similar bearings at the same or lesser prices as that of Mirah Exports and that discount from 50% to 70% on the list prices was the normal invoice price for a number of unconnected importers during the period. The Collector of Customs, while passing the orders dated December 5, 1986 and March 20, 1987 and the Tribunal in the impugned judgment have not taken note of the said documents and the fact that the importers had been given 50% to 70% discount on the prices indicated in the list price. 4.3 T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation, in the course of international trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or offer for sale. In the present case the company itself had produced a copy of the quotations received by them from M/s. Shun Hing Technology Ltd., Hongkong in respect of the copiers and other items imported alongwith their application for approval of their phased manufacturing programme. The company itself having produced these quotations, they cannot dispute the correctness of the prices mentioned therein. The company has not only not disputed the correctness of these quotations but has not produced any other material on record to show that the value mentioned in the invoices was the correct market value of the goods imported at the relevant time. The adjudicating authority in these circumstances was perfectly justified in taking the prices mentioned in the quotations as a basis for determining the correct value of the imported goods. 5.1 The learned AR also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padia Sales Corporation ....