Supreme Court of India
M/S COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
- Decided
- 29 March 1995
- Judges listed
- R.M. SAHAI, S.C. SEN
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] 3 S.C.R. 69 · 1995 INSC 230
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in applying Rule 3(b) of the Customs Valuation Rules framed under Section 14 of the Customs Act.
p. 70
The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of 125 cartons of toners declaring the value of the goods at a particular amount on the basis of invoice-cum-value and country of ongin certificate issued by M/s. Sangill
p. 70
Ltd. Since the seller was not a manufacturer the Department required the appellant to furnish the price list of the goods under import but the appellant instead of filing the price list stated that they had purchased the goods from a trading company which was not willing to reveal the sol!rce of supply. Consequently, the Department obtained export price list from M/s. Coates Electrographics Limited. After examining the price list of Mis
p. 70
Coates Electrographics Ltd., the Collector was of the opinion that it was a case in which rule 3(a) could not be applied. Therefore, he proceeded to determine the value under rule 3(b) and on the price list supplied by the manufacturer the valuation of the toner imported by the appellant was determined. It was held that the value of the goods when compared with
p. 70, margin D
manufacturer's price list was much below the nonnal price in the international market. The goods were directed to be confiscated with an option to clear on Rs. 8 lakhs. Penalty of Rs. 1000 was also imposed. Against this order the appellant approached the Tribunal. The Tnbunal found that the Collector did not commit any error in applying rule 3(b) but reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. The penalty of Rs. 1,000 was maintained.
p. 70, margin E
Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act empowers the appropriate authority to determine the value of the imported goods in accordance with provisions contained in rules 3 to 8. Rule 3(a) provides for determination
p. 70, margin F
of value of such goods, with comparable goods produced or manufactured and ordinarily sold or offered for sale to other buyers in India under competitive conditions. Rule 3(b) permits the proper officer to determine A valuation on the export price at which such goods or comparable goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale under competitive conditions to huyers outside India. The determination under rule 3 (b) could be undertaken if the valuation could not be determined under clause (a). The authorities found that in the nature of goods imported by the appellant the valuation of it could not be determined under rule 3(a). Therefore, rule B 3(b) was rightly invoked. And the determination having been done on comparable goods offered for sale in competitive conditions in countries outside India the order does not suffer from any error of law. The Tribunal further did not commit any error in relying on the price list supplie4 by the manufacturer as compared to trading company which refused to C diwlgc the name of the mannfacturer.
pp. 70–71, margin F
In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs. T.NA Appeal dismissed.
p. 71