TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Date Invoice No. & Date Bill of Entry & Date 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 M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e imported to make a complete system and no indigenous part is to be added to make the system functional. Statements 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) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 and redemption fine of Rs 20.00 lakhs were offered. A penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs on Pundari Trivedi and Rs. 1.00 lakh each on 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by different proprietary firms to be made and considered as an import of a complete set as is made out by Customs department in this 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 differe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication, Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules thus provides for an incomplete article as a complete article provided it has the essential characteristics 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 watc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l vide its decision in Dhirubhai N. Sheth v. Collector of Customs - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 697 (Tribunal) and has come to the conclusion that reliance on that 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 un....