w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Commerce International v/s Collector of Customs


Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U10100WB1980PLC204139

    Civil Appeal No. 2198 of 1988

    Decided On, 29 March 1995

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, HON'BLE JUSTICE R. M. SAHAI AND HON'BLE JUSTICE S. C. SEN

   



Judgment Text

1. 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


2. The appellant filed 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 origin certificate issued by M/s. Sangill 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 source of supply. Consequently, the Department obtained the export price list from M/s. Coates Electrographics Limited. After examining the price list of M/s. 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 the manufacturer's price list was much below the normal 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 Tribunal 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. 1000 was maintained


3. 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 of the 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 valuation on the export price at which such goods or comparable goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale under competitive conditions to buyers 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 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 err

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

or of law. The Tribunal further did not commit any error in relying on the price list supplied by the manufacturer as compared to the trading company which refused to divulge the name of the manufacturer4. In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-04-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited & Another Versus International Commerce Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-01-2019 International Commerce Limited & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-07-2018 International Commerce Limited Versus Government of India, Ministry of Steel, through its Secretary Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
12-05-2016 International Commerce Limited & Another Versus The Steel Authority of India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
31-05-2012 Kuehne + Nagel International Ag Versus Commerce Commission Court of Appeal of New Zealand
09-01-2009 Rich Source International, rep. by its Proprietor Versus The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-10-2008 Ramasamy Athappan & Another Versus The Secretariat of the Court, International Chamber of Commerce & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-03-2001 Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA Versus Munawar Ali, Sultana Runi Khan & Others House of Lords
12-06-1997 Malik & Another Versus Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. House of Lords
16-01-1996 Orientel Bank Of Commerce Versus Remko International High Court of Delhi
12-11-1993 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS JOINT PROVISIONAL LIQUIDATORS BANK OF CREDIT, COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) LTD. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-1992 Reserve Bank of India Versus Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. & another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-02-1992 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) LTD. High Court of Judicature at Bombay