TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (8) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in paper copiers. Three consignments were imported from M/s. Paralax Industrial Corp., Hongkong under airways bill numbers 098, 4960, 3120; 098, 4960, 3116; and 098, 4960,3105 all dated 21-1-1987. The goods were received at the air cargo complex, Bangalore. The company sought the clearance of the imported goods under bills of entry Nos. 2044, 2045 and 2046 all dated 3-2-1987. Similarly, the goods were also imported from M/s. Alpha Papyrus Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Singapore under airway bill No. 098, 4925, 4914 dated 19-2-1987. The clearance for this consignment was sought under bill of entry No. 4993 dated 11-3-1987. The company had declared the value of each of the consignments at Rs. 32,182/- Rs. 43,359, Rs. 5,412/- and Rs. 18,659/- respectively in respect of the above-mentioned bills of entry Nos. 2044, 2045, 2046 and 4993. The total value declared was Rs. 99,612/- under all the four bills. 3. Proceedings were held before the Appraiser of Customs air cargo complex Bangalore for verification of the goods and their valuation etc. and the statements of the company's Managing Director Sh. Sadanand were also recorded on 11-2-1987,10-3-1987 and 18-3-1987 under Sec. 108 of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these goods will be deemed to be fully assembled copiers for the purpose of valuation and licence. Thus the goods imported as fully assembled copiers were not permissible to be imported and this was a clear violation of the Act and the terms of the licence. It was also held in the alternative that even if all the parts imported were viewed individually, none of the items tally with the licence. The Collector in this regard gave detailed reasons for arriving at this conclusion. The Collector also held that the value of the parts imported for the purposes of Sec. 14(1) of the Act would be Rs. 5,63,332/- whereas the importers were permitted to import goods worth Rs. 4,94,500/-. There was thus an excess of Rs. 68,832/- and as such the goods were liable to confiscation under Sec. 111(d) of the Act. The Collector in these circumstances passed an order for confiscation of the entire goods with an option to the company to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 3 lacs. The Collector also imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lac on the company and Rs. 1 lac on Sh. Sadanand, the Managing Director of the Company. 5. The company filed two appeals aggrieved against the common order of the Collector relat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue of the imported goods on the basis of the quotations of M/s. Shun Hing Technology Ltd., Hongkong. The quotation of Shun Hing indicated prices at Hongkong and not the place of importation. There was no other material on record to determine the value of the imported goods. It was thus contended that in the absence of any other relevant material, the invoice price has to be taken as the basis for valuation. It was also submitted that there was no justification in discarding the price shown in the invoices which contained the correct value of the goods imported and in case the Customs authorities were not placing reliance on such prices mentioned in the invoices, then the burden lay on the Customs department to find out the correct value of the goods by collecting material and other adequate evidence before enhancing the value of the imported goods. The onus to prove the charge of under-valuation against the company was on the Customs department and the evidence relied upon by them, as contained in the adjudication order, is not at all sufficient to discharge that onus. It was further argued that any reliance placed on the quotations furnished at the time of submitting the applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um, one developer unit and a bottle of developer. It was thus argued that the original packing cartons used for packing fully finished copiers are normally supplied only if fully finished copiers are purchased. It was submitted that the adjudicating authority has given detailed reasons for showing that the goods imported were not components of plain paper copiers as declared. In fact, the company had purchased 14 fully finished copiers 10 in Hongkong and 4 in Singapore and had then dismantled for importing the same in the guise of components of copiers. The company had submitted application for approval of their phased manufacturing programme to the Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries Govt. of India, New Delhi in July, 1986 and alongwith this application they had also submitted the quotations received by them from M/s. Shun Hing Technology Ltd., Hongkong which covered all the items imported except a few items like toner drum and table for model FP 2625. The company in the present case not only violated the terms and conditions of licence but also committed a complete fraud in importing fully finished copiers which was a totally prohibited item, in the guise of separate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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. 12. Mr. Dholakia next contended that the Tribunal itself had set aside the finding of the adjudicating authority on the question of treating SKD/CKD packs of the copiers imported comprised of all the 100% components of copiers. The company had tried to practise a fraud in defeating the import policy itself. The intention and purpose of the import policy w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....December, 1956. Under the said licence, the respondents in that case imported certain goods which arrived in two consignments, each containing 17 cases by two different ships. According to the respondents, the goods so imported by them were motorcycle parts which their licence authorised them to import. The Customs authorities, on the contrary held, on the examination of the goods, that they constituted 51 sets of "Rixe Mopeds complete in a knocked down condition". After holding an inquiry the Deputy Collector directed confiscation of the said goods with an option to the respondents to pay certain sums in lieu of confiscation and also personal penalties. That order was passed on the basis that the goods imported were not parts and accessories of motorcycles and scooters presumably under entry 295 of the Schedule to the Import (Control) Order but were motorcycles/scooters in completely knocked down conditions, prohibited under remark II against entry 294, a licence in respect of goods covered by it would authorise import of motorcycles and scooters. The Deputy Collector held that though the goods were not in completely knocked down condition it made no difference as the tyres, tubes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein, that the parts and accessories imported, if assembled, would make motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. There are no remarks against entry 295, as there are against entry 294, that a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 would not be valid for import of spares and accessories which, if assembled, would make motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. 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. The first two could not be imported and were in fact not imported because that could not be done under the licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 which expressly prohibited their import and a separate licence under entry 41 of Part V would be necessary. The third, namely, saddles were not amongst the goods imported. No doubt, there was, firstly, a finding by the Collector that a trade practice prevailed under which motor cycles and scooters without tyres, tubes and saddles could be sold. Secondly, the tyres and tubes could be had in the market here and so also saddles, so that if an importer desired, he cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t import of both motor cycles and scooters as also parts and accessories thereof was permitted, of the first under entry 294 and of the other under entry 295. A trader having a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 294 could import assembled motor cycles and scooters, but not those vehicles in C.K.D. condition, unless he was a manufacturer and had obtained a separate licence therefor from the Controller of Imports who, as aforesaid, was authorised to issue such a licence on an ad hoc basis. Thus the restriction not to import motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition was against an importer holding a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 294 under which he could import complete motor cycles and scooters and not against an importer had a licence to import parts and accessories under entry 295. If Dr. Syed Mohammad's contention were to be right we would have to import remark (ii) against entry 294 into entry 295, a thing which obviously is not permissible while construing these entries. Further, such a condition, if one were to be implied in entry 295, would not fit in, as it is a restriction against import of motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refore, not the goods in respect of which the licence was granted. Further, the articles in question, even when assembled together, were not prohibited articles as in Girdharilal's case. Girdharilal case is clearly distinguishable because it is not as if motor cycles and scooters are prohibited articles as was the case there. The restriction is not against licensees importing motor cycles and scooters under entry 294 and parts and accessories under entry 295 but against the licensees under entry 294 importing motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. The question in the instant case was not under which of the two entries, 294 or 295, the goods fell, but whether the goods were parts and accessories covered by entry 295." 16. In our view the Tribunal was not correct in placing reliance on the case of Union of India v. Tara Chand Gupta & Bros. (supra) in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case before us the import of fully assembled copiers was prohibited. The appellants was only entitled to import 62% of the components. As already mentioned above, the device adopted by the appellant in the present case was a complete fraud on the Import Policy and the....