Commissioner of Customs Vs. Bharat Pulverising Mills - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the importer respondent in this departmental appeal imported a consignment of acephate. in the bill of entry filed for the clearance of the goods it declared the country of origin as usa. the goods were shipped from hong kong and invoice issued by the supplier at hong kong.on being asked by the custom house the importer produced copy of manufacturer's invoice. the custom house found that the value declared was low compared to the value of similar goods imported by other persons from singapore. notice also was issued proposing increase in the value of the goods in terms of rule 8 of the customs rules. since custom house had not gone to examine import of identical goods of us original from hong kong.2. after considering the representation by the importer the assistant collector confirmed the proposal in the notice and increased the value from us $ 4 to us $ 6.75 per kg. the importer appealed from this order to commissioner (appeals) who held that the goods were of us origin and comparison of similar goods which were of chinese origin was not permissible as per the rule and that since the assessee importer had produced the copy of invoice manufacture of the goods, there was no reason why that should not be accepted. he also noted that the importer had produced number of invoices from canada from the manufacturer of goods supporting the value claimed. he also accepted the value declared as correct, allowed the appeal. hence this appeal by the department.3. the contention in appeal is that the invoices produced by the importer is not acceptable. it is contended that the importer declared the goods to be of us origin in the bill of entry whereas on verification of the particulars in the invoice, the manufacturer was in vancour in canada. therefore, the invoice for the transaction cannot be accepted and in the absence of import of identical goods value of similar goods has as rightly been resorted.4. the invoice produced by the importer was issued by canada enterprises co. ltd. b.c. north america. "b.c." is the abbreviation for british columbia of canada of which the capital is vancour. therefore it cannot be said that invoice produce wrong value or did not have any relevant particulars. all that can be said is that the importer has declared a wrong country of origin in the bill of entry. they may perhaps render it liable for action for such wrong declaration. it cannot effect that invoice cannot be accepted and it is to be shown that the invoice contained particulars which are false or incorrect.that is not the department's case. on the contrary verification by it has confirmed the correctness of manufacturer's address. therefore, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the invoice than the transaction value.

Judgment:
1. The importer respondent in this departmental appeal imported a consignment of Acephate. In the bill of entry filed for the clearance of the goods it declared the country of origin as USA. The goods were shipped from Hong Kong and invoice issued by the supplier at Hong Kong.

On being asked by the Custom House the importer produced copy of manufacturer's invoice. The Custom House found that the value declared was low compared to the value of similar goods imported by other persons from Singapore. Notice also was issued proposing increase in the value of the goods in terms of Rule 8 of the Customs Rules. Since Custom House had not gone to examine import of identical goods of US original from Hong Kong.

2. After considering the representation by the importer the Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal in the notice and increased the value from US $ 4 to US $ 6.75 per kg. The importer appealed from this order to Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the goods were of US origin and comparison of similar goods which were of Chinese origin was not permissible as per the rule and that since the assessee importer had produced the copy of invoice manufacture of the goods, there was no reason why that should not be accepted. He also noted that the importer had produced number of invoices from Canada from the manufacturer of goods supporting the value claimed. He also accepted the value declared as correct, allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the department.

3. The contention in appeal is that the invoices produced by the importer is not acceptable. It is contended that the importer declared the goods to be of US origin in the bill of entry whereas on verification of the particulars in the invoice, the manufacturer was in Vancour in Canada. Therefore, the invoice for the transaction cannot be accepted and in the absence of import of identical goods value of similar goods has as rightly been resorted.

4. The invoice produced by the importer was issued by Canada Enterprises Co. Ltd. B.C. North America. "B.C." is the abbreviation for British Columbia of Canada of which the capital is Vancour. Therefore it cannot be said that invoice produce wrong value or did not have any relevant particulars. All that can be said is that the importer has declared a wrong country of origin in the bill of entry. They may perhaps render it liable for action for such wrong declaration. It cannot effect that invoice cannot be accepted and it is to be shown that the invoice contained particulars which are false or incorrect.

That is not the department's case. On the contrary verification by it has confirmed the correctness of manufacturer's address. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the invoice than the transaction value.