TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (6) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Directors, during the relevant period of 24th May, 1966 to 17th June, 1974. 2. The petitioners had imported spare parts of watches from M/s. Sedim Establishment, Vaduz, Switzerland (hereinafter referred to as "the said Swiss Company"). The said Swiss Company has a sister concern by name of Sedim France (hereinafter referred to as "the said French Company"). There is collaboration between the said Indian Company and the said French Company since the year 1961 and under this agreement the said Indian Company manufactures watches in India in collaboration with the said French Company. The parts required for the manufacture of such watches are supplied by the said French Company to the said Indian Company. It appears that the watches and pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner had been wrongly described or mis-stated with regard to their valuation, involving a loss of Rs. 97,031/- in duty. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to explain as to why penal action be not taken against him under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the goods be not confiscated under Section 111 of the Act. The reason given in the said Notice was that the valuation in the invoice of the goods had been shown at a lower price and the price should have been calculated with an addition of 37.5 per cent, as according to the Department the real price of the spare parts was not what the petitioner had stated in the invoice but it was much higher. The Customs Department, in this connection, relied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, the valuation for the purpose of assessment may be calculated on the basis of the Catalogue of 1967 as given by the Groupement. As against this, an appeal was preferred to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. That appeal was also rejected by an order passed on 23rd July 1975. Thereafter a revision application was filed by the petitioner, which was also rejected by the order of the Government dated 18th November 1978. Thereafter the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the said decision of the respondents. 7. In this connection, the provisions of the Act relating to valuation of goods, for the purpose of assessment, are as follows : x x &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hareholding in the total authorised capital. The said Indian Company might have some understanding with the said Groupe-ment but that does not mean that the petitioner has any interest whatsoever, either in the said French Company or in the said Swiss Company from whom he had imported the spare parts. He also submitted that, in any event, the petitioner was not importing these spare parts for the said Indian Company but he was, in fact, importing for his own Company, which had nothing to do with the said Indian Company. Mr. Rana further submitted that even in the past when the petitioner had imported various spare parts from the said Swiss Company, the Department had always accepted the said invoices and they had never questioned. Therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, London. The asses-see at all material times sold the large bulk of dyes manufactured by it in wholesale to Atul Products Limited and Imperial Chemical Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. at a uniform price applicable alike to both these wholesale buyers and these wholesale buyers in their turn sold the dyes purchased by them from the assessee to dealers as well as consumers. The Assistant Collector had held in the above matter that the assessee on the one hand and Atul Products Ltd. and the other Limited Company (by which time the name of the said Company had been changed to Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited) on the other hand were "related persons" within the meaning of the definition of that term conta....