LexCOMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI-IV versus MIS.ARYAN ELECTRONICS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 252 A COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI-IV B v. MIS.ARYAN ELECTRONICS (Civil Appeal No. 709 OF 2005) APRIL29,2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Customs Valuation Rules, 1988: rr.4, 5, 6, 10A - c Import of goods - Transaction value @ Rs.36 per piece declared by the importer-respondent - Rejected by the Commissioner (appeal) and invoking r. 6, he found thatin 10 instances given by department, prices mentioned therein varied from Rs. 73.94 and Rs.134.08 per piece and taking D minimum of the said price fixed the transaction value at Rs. 73. 94 and confiscated the goods and imposed differential duty and redemption fine of Rs.20 lacs and penalty of Rs.5 lacs - Tribunal held that identical goods were imported @ Rs. 58 per piece and, therefore, there was no reason to justify E the value fixed by Commissioner (appeal)- Held: In the 10 instances given by the Department, prices thereof ranged between Rs. 73 to Rs. 134 per piece - On the other hand, 5 examples given by respondent, prices thereof were from Rs. 58 to Rs. 72. 12- The Departmental representative argued F that even as per the respondent, the similar goods were imported@ between 58 to Rs. 72. 12 per piece and, therefore, the declaration of price in Bill of Entry at Rs. 36 per piece was not accurate - The price of Rs. 581- was rightly not G accepted by the Commissioner by giving a very valid reason, namely, even in respect of that import by the importer declaring the value of Rs. 581-, a show cause notice had been issued by the Department and case was under scrutiny - Thus, the entire basis of the Tribunal's order was misplaced H as it was founded on total misconception of law and was also 252 COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI v. M/S ARYAN 253 ELECTRONICS contrary to the facts on record - The order of Tribunal is set A aside and order of Commissioner is affirmed insofar as it relates to redemption of the value declared by the respondent at Rs. 36 per piece and fixing the value at Rs. 73. 94 per piece, as well as demand of differential duty on that basis - Redemption fine of Rs. 20 lakhs and the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs B which is imposed in the facts of this case is on a higher side - Redemption fine is reduced to Rs.6 lakhs which is the equivalent to the differential duty and penalty imposed is set aside a/together- Custom Act, 1962 - s. 112. Disposing of the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1. In the first instance, the comparable instance which was taken into consideration by the Commissioner was not that of "identical goods" but D "similar goods". The Commissioner himself mentioned · that no evidence of identical goods was available. Therefore, the Tribunal wrongly proceeded on the basis that the Commissioner had loaded the value on the basis of import of identical goods. When the Commissioner E rejected the transaction value declared by the respondent applying Rule 10Aofthe Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, on that basis he held that Rule 4(1) would not apply. Thereafter he stated that Rule 5 would not apply as there was no evidence of "identical goods". It F is for this reasons he undertook .the exercise, as contemplated in Rule 6, by giving the example of "similar goods". The instances which were given by the Department and even by the respondent himself, no objection was raised by the respondent that these G instances were not .of similar goods. Therefore, relying upon those instances by the Commissioner cannot be faulted. [Paras 9, 10] [259-C-G] 2. The Tribunal also committed error in rejecting H 254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 6 S.C.R. A the basis of Commissioner's order on the ground that these instances which were relied upon by the Commissioner were of the import in May, 2003 while the import in question took place prior to that date. Insofar as the import by the respondent is concerned, that was B on 13.05.2003. Therefore, the instances which were relied upon by the Commissioner of May, 2003 are of the same period and fulfill the requirement of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Insofar as reasoning predicted on import of identical goods at the rate of Rs. 58/- per piece C is concerned, again a clear fallacy has occurred in making such observation. The ten instances which were given by the Department, prices thereof ranged between the 73 to 134 per piece. On the other hand, five examples 0 which were given by the respondent, prices thereof were from Rs. 58/- to Rs
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.