ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. In this Appeal filed by M/s. SAS Impex – issue involved is the enhancement of the transaction value of the calculators imported by them.
2. Shri Hariom Arora, ld. Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported a consignment of 10,000 calculators model No. CT 500 of Chinese origin from Singapore; that they filed a Bill of Entry dated 27-3-2001 in which unit price declared was Singapore $ 0.90 per piece; that the appraiser proposed to enhance the value to US $ 1.80 on the basis of similar import at the relevant period; that subsequently a show cause notice dated 25-4-2001 was issued to them for enhancement of the value to US $ 3.35 per piece FOB on the ground that identical calculators were released at the said declared price; that the Commissioner under the impugned Order has confiscated the consignment for mis-declaration with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. One lakh and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- with the direction that the value of the impugned goods for the purpose of assessment of duty would be US $ 3.35 per piece FOB. The ld. Advocate, further, submitted that they had declared the price of the goods as per the invoice received from the foreign supplier; that there was no mis-declaration on their part; that further, they had produced as evidence Bill of Entry for earlier import of similar kind and of origin of calculators from Singapore; that the price list of M/s. Japan CBM Corporation for Citizen Calculators will not be applicable for the impugned goods which are of Chinese Origin inasmuch as the price list categorically speaks that the same is for goods exported from their Rotterdam and Hong Kong Warehouses only; that there is no indication that they produce goods in China; that the Bill of. Entry No. 32, dated 1-1-2001 and Bill of. Entry No. 598, dated 15-2-2001 were for the supplies made from Hong Kong and not from Singapore as in the instant matter. He relied upon the decision in the case of Satya Vijay Export P. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs – 1991 (51) E.L.T. 457 wherein it was held that price of imports made from Hong Kong and Korea are not comparable although the goods are comparable. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Basant Industries v. Additional Collector of Customs – 1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.), wherein the Supreme Court has held that by a mere comparison of two invoices without knowing more, it may not be correct to proceed on the premises that there has been undervaluation. The relationship between the supplier and importer has also to be kept in mind because it is a matter of common knowledge that price which is offered by a supplier to an old customer may be different from a price which the same supplier offers to a totally new customers. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Resina Combination v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [1999 (114) E.L.T. 860]. The ld. Advocate finally submitted that the calculators imported by the Appellants are duplicate and are not having auto check and as such their price cannot be enhanced; that there has been no allegation of payment made by them underhand to the foreign supplier.
3. Countering the arguments Shri D.K. Bhowmik, ld. DR, submitted that the value has been enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports; that both the bill of entries relied upon are dated 1-1-2001 and 15-2-2001 and the impugned goods have also been imported in March, 2001. In those cases also Citizen Calculators of Chinese origin of model CT 500 were imported at US $ 3.35 per piece FOB; that the Commissioner in the impugned Order has distinguished the decision relied upon by the ld. Advocate; that further the appellants had only declared that the goods were of Chinese origin but no brand/make was declared by them. On examination the goods were found to be Citizen Calculators of Model CT 500; that accordingly there was mis-declaration on the part of the Appellants and both redemption fine and penalty imposed under the impugned Order are justified.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Revenue has enhanced the value as the calculators of Chinese Origin Model CT 500 were imported contemporaneously in the month of January and February 2001 at the rate of US $ 3.35 per piece FOB. The Appellants have not brought on record any evidence in support of their contention that the calculators imported by them are duplicates or without auto check. We also observe that Commissioner has referred to price list of Japan CBM Corporation according to which Citizen calculator is priced at 3.35 US $. In view of these facts, we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned Order. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Basant Industries is not applicable to the facts of the present matter, as the Appellants have not brought out any evidence on record to show that the supplier had supplied the calculators to them at a lower rate on account of some special relationship. The decision in the case of Satya Vijay Exports is also not applicable in view of the fact that the value has been enhanced by the Revenue on the basis of contemporaneous import made of the same model of the calculators of Chinese origin only. The ratio of the decision in the case of Resina Combination is not applicable as the facts are different as in the said case the Tribunal applied the lower of the two values under Rule 5(3) of the Valuation Rules. Considering the value of the goods as enhanced, the redemption fine as well as the penalty imposed by the Commissioner is not on higher side at all. We, therefore, find no merit in the Appeal and reject the same.