ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, confirming the Order-in-Original No. 12/DD1/97, dated 11-8-1997 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi confiscating the goods imported by the appellant under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and covered by Bill of Entry dated 16-12-1996, but allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000.00, determining the value of the imported goods as Rs. 5,93,386.43 as against the declared value of Rs. 2,36,189.87 and imposing penalty of Rs. 30,000.00 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Appellant imported 50,000 sets of calculator parts of China origin supplied by a trader in Hong Kong. Invoice dated 4-12-1996 presented by the appellant referred to the component parts as Card, Key Pad + Rubber, LCD, Button Cell, Screw, Metal Connector and Stickers. The prices of these different components were shown in Hong Kong $ as 0.55, 0.10, 0.25, 0.08, 0.010, 0.016 and 0.00198 respectively. The copy of invoice was received along with the Airway Bill did not contain any date. The invoice presented contained what purported to be seal and signature of a local bank in Delhi. Enquiry with the bank showed that the seal and signature were not put by bank officers. These circumstances prompted an enquiry into the correct international price of the components. Show cause notice was issued referring to the above circumstances and relying on two invoices issued by Sunway Electronic Company, Hong Kong and Valson Ltd., Hong Kong which showed much higher prices for these components and proposing enhancement of the assessment value as indicated in the show cause notice. Regarding the value of Button Cell, the show cause notice relied on the price list issued by M/s. Cromex International Co. Ltd. Though the appellant resisted the notice, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the proposals in the notice as indicated above and this order has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the so-called invoice of Sunway Electronic Company is not really an invoice but a quotation, that the origin of the goods covered by the invoice of Valson Ltd., Hong Kong is not known, that the goods covered by this document were only 20,000 sets against 50,000 sets imported by the appellant. For these reasons, according to him, the two documents cannot be relied for rejecting the invoice value. He also referred to three documents produced by the appellant, including the records of earlier import by the appellant himself. The goods covered by these documents, according to the appellant, covered similar parts of comparable goods of China origin. The declared value is comparable to the value shown in these documents and, therefore, it is contended that there was no justification to reject the transaction value.
4. The component parts covered by these five documents are as indicated below:-
——————————————————————————–
Description Sunway Valson Globax Globax Equity Indus-
Ltd. Page 69 Ltd. Page 71 trial Co.
Page 73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Chip Card included included included not included included
2. Key Pad included included included not included included
3. Rubber included included included not included included
Connector
4. LCD included included not included included not included
(Display)
5. Button Cell - not in- not included - included
Battery cluded
6. Metal - not in- not included not included included
Connectors cluded
7. Sticker - not in- not included not included included
cluded
8. Screw included included included not included included
9. Box not in- not in- included not included part included
cluded cluded
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. There does not appear to be any justification not to act on the invoice issued by Valson Ltd. The corresponding Bill of Entry shows the country of origin as China and the document is also at or about the time of the subject import. This invoice indicates the value of Display, Rubber Connector, Chips on Board and Key Pad as HK $ 0.30, 0.08,1.50 and 0.44 respectively. The total price is be inclusive of the screws. As against this corresponding value shown in the subject invoice is HK $ 0.25, 0.10, 0.55 and 0.10. The value of screw is shown separately as HK $ 0.010. Regarding the value of box shown in the Valson Ltd. invoice, the Adjudicating Authority adopted the value shown in the Valson Ltd. invoice. This appears to be completely justified.
6. At page 61 is seen the list of components and the assessed value. This list refers to certain components, namely, Button Cell, Metal Connector, Sticker. Nevertheless, the adjudicating authority has enhanced the value of these three items also without indicating the basis of such enhancement. Shri M. Ali, JDR at one stage suggested that the enhancement must have been on pro-rata basis depending on the extent of enhancement of the other four items. We find on verification that the enhancement based on Valson Ltd. invoice is not at a uniform rate. Later, Shri M. Ali, JDR suggested that the enhanced value of Button Cell is based on yet another invoice of Cromex Industrial Co. Ltd. of comparable goods. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant copy of this document was not given to the appellant and the document is undated and unsigned. We find a specific recital in the show cause notice that the price list of Cromex Industrial Co. was annexed to the show cause notice as Annexure E. The reply to the show cause notice is seen at pages 47 to 49 of the paper book. We do not find any averment in the reply regarding non-receipt of copy of this document or any challenge of this document. Therefore, the submission that copy of the document was not furnished, it was undated and unsigned document cannot be accepted. But the show cause notice does not explain the status of Cromex Industrial Co. Ltd., whether it is an importer or a mere local trader. Therefore, it is not known what kind of price was incorporated in the price list, whether the imported price or the price in local market of the imported article. Therefore, we do not find any justification for the enhancement of the value of Button Cell. So also regarding the enhancement of the value of Metal Connector and Stickers. Enhancement was not based on any document of comparable import nor can any particular basis be inferred from ascertainable facts.
7. From what we have indicated above, it must follow that the Additional Commissioner was justified in enhancing the value of Display LCD, Rubber Connector, Key Pad, Chip on Board and was not justified in enhancing the value of Button Cell and Metal Connector.
In this view, the assessable value and duty have to be requantified. In this view, redemption fine and penalty also are required to be quantified afresh.
8. For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for fresh quantification of assessable value, duty, redemption fine and penalty after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing. Appeal is allowed.