TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Importers Name Assessable Value 1. 11980/2002 dated 27-7-2002 SIBBOM 008857 dated 20-7-2002 2070221 dated 22-7-2002 281755 dated 30-7-2002 M/s. Saumya Marketing Rs. 548552/- 2. 11980/2002 dated 27-7-2002 SINBOM 008857-22 dated 20-7-2002 2070222 dated 22-7-2002 281952 dated 30-7-2002 M/s. Mega Enterprises Rs. 743840/- 3. 11980/2002 dated 27-7-2002 SINBOM 008857-1 dated 20-7-2002 2070223 dated 22-7-2002 281758 dated 30-7-2002 M/s. Saumya Marketing Rs. 349343 Total Rs. 16,41,735 Since the three consignments were supplied by the same foreign supplier M/s. Lim Manufacturing (Pte) Ltd., Singapore and they had arrived by the same vessel and invoices raised were in consecutive ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of various persons were recorded which revealed that the proprietor of the importing firms were being advised and then controlled by Pundarik Trivedi who claimed to be actual owner of the said firms and their proprietors were given a sum of Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 5000/- per month for operating the said firms in their names. The goods were released after accepting provisional bond and on submission of bank guarantee and a Show Cause Notice was issued alleging undervaluation and import of full electronic audio systems, cassette player etc. (b) The Commissioner, after considering the material, came to the conclusion that : (i) the goods covered under the 3 Bills of Entry referred to above in this case were actually imported by Pundarik Trivedi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vinodbhai Patel and Shohanbhai Soni was imposed. The present appeals are filed by these three persons. (c) The issue of clubbing of imports made on different BE's of components of electronic entity is not res integra, After considering the catena of decisions on the above subject including the Supreme Court's decisions, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sony India Ltd. v. CC, ICD, New Delhi - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 411 (Tri.-LB) have held that components imported (TV components in that case) cannot be treated as complete colour TV set by clubbing. It held that duty demanded, direction for confiscation and imposition of penalty were not sustainable under law. In that case, the same appellant had imported parts of colour TV from Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case. This view of the Customs i.e. to club imports of different proprietary firms, would lead to a situation, of no imports of components of such electronic goods or other machinery etc. could be independently effected, rendering the separate Tariff Entry nugatory. Since parts and components are being imported by various persons which eventually may result in assembly of the entire goods when taken together or for being used as replacement parts. The decision of the Larger Bench does not permit clubbing of imports made by same person, following the same we have to hold that clubbing of imports by different independent importers cannot be clubbed. (d) We also rely on the decision of R.R Electronics - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 504 wherein it was h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acteristics of the complete article. Rule 2(a) applies to the single importer and for the goods covered by particular Bill of Entry. In other words, if the goods presented for assessment under one Bill of Entry filed by the two respective importers do not have the essential characteristics of a complete article. The case relied upon by the D.R. in Goel Pvt. Ltd. v. CC [2004 (178) E.L.T. 1010 (T) (Final Order No. A/1418/WZB/2004/C-I dated 19-8-2004) is based on different facts since in that case one single importer imported parts of wrist watches having the essential characteristics of a complete watch in CKD condition. The Larger Bench in case of Sony (India) Ltd. [2002 (143) E.L.T. 411] held that only when the components are presented toge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat decision is not seem to be legally correct because within the meaning of Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962, the word also includes "any owner or any person holding himself ought to be the importer and since Trivedi in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 had categorically claimed the impugned goods and the importers were shown in the documents. Therefore, based on this admission he is to be held as an importer in an indirect manner and would fall within the definition as given under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, he would be liable for penalty under Section 112(a) for having done in any manner which renders the goods liable for confiscation, abates or omission and Trivedi did more than abetti....