Sai Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....was of another brand and of slightly lesser quantity.we do not think that in the circumstances these contentions could be accepted. the collector has noticed that the sale confirmation which quoted the lower price did not refer to any brand name at all and this observation has not been objected to by the appellants. in other words, the contract between the supplier and the importer was for supply of staple pins but without any particular brand name. the supply was of staple pins with the brand name "pelikan". this is sufficient reason to hold that the value shown in the sale confirmation as well as the import documents would not reflect the ordinary international price for identical or similar goods. it is not shown that there was any difference in the value of staple pins of the two brands referred to above. the difference in quantity is not appreciable.3. in these circumstances, we find that the collector was justified in loading the value to the extent he did. appeal is dismissed.

Judgment:

1. Appellants are absent and are unrepresented in spite of notice hearing. We have heard Shri K.K. Jha, SDR and perused the papers.

2. The appeal relates to import by appellants of 100 cartons of Pelikan brand of staple pins of South Korean origin through a Singapore supplier at the declared value of US $ 0.50 per dozen boxes CIF. Bill of Entry bears the date 11-6-1990. After show cause notice and personal hearing, the Collector of Customs loaded the value to US $ 0.66 per dozen boxes CIF. It is the contention of the appellants that this value could not have been adopted for two reasons, namely, that the appellants' import was under sale confirmation dated 7-5-1989 which disclosed the price to be US $ 0.50 per dozen boxes CIF, and the compared import was of another brand and of slightly lesser quantity.

We do not think that in the circumstances these contentions could be accepted. The Collector has noticed that the sale confirmation which quoted the lower price did not refer to any brand name at all and this observation has not been objected to by the appellants. In other words, the contract between the supplier and the importer was for supply of staple pins but without any particular brand name. The supply was of staple pins with the brand name "Pelikan". This is sufficient reason to hold that the value shown in the sale confirmation as well as the import documents would not reflect the ordinary international price for identical or similar goods. It is not shown that there was any difference in the value of staple pins of the two brands referred to above. The difference in quantity is not appreciable.

3. In these circumstances, we find that the Collector was justified in loading the value to the extent he did. Appeal is dismissed.