2000(07)LCX0141
IN THE CEGAT, EASTERN BENCH, CALCUTTA
Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Dr. S.N. Busi, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA
Order No. A-1087/Cal/2000, dated 25-7-2000 in Appeal No. C/RV-122/95-Cal
Cases Quoted
English Electric Co. v. Commissioner — 1996(11)LCX0164 Eq 1998 (101) ELT 0394 (Tribunal) — Relied on ..... [Para 4]
Perfect Electric Concern Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector — 1997(02)LCX0179 Eq 1997 (093) ELT 0622 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Para 4]
Sun Export Corporation v. Commissioner — 1997(02)LCX0166 Eq 1997 (093) ELT 0421 (Tribunal) — Relied on [Para 4]
Advocated By : None, for the Appellants.
Shri R.K. Roy, JDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : S.N. Busi, Member (T)]. - In this appeal M/s. Cathedral International, New Delhi, the appellant, challenges the Order-in-Appeal No. Cal./Cus. 89/95, dated 27-2-95 of Collector of Customs (Appeals) Calcutta which confirmed Order-in-Original No. 8/94 (Addl. Collr.) dated 22-4-94 whereby the imported goods were classified as remote switch under 9032.10 of the Customs Tariff, enhanced the assessable value from Rs. 5799.22 to Rs. 56,088.50 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- on the appellant.
2. Whereas the imported goods were declared by the importer as a general purpose “motor and rotary switches” classifying under sub-heading 8536.50 of the Customs Tariff Act, the Revenue classified the same under sub-heading 9032.10 as a “remote switch”. The revenue has also increased the value of the impugned goods from Rs. 5,799.92 to Rs. 56,088.50. The appellant contests the decision of the Revenue on these two counts of classification as well as valuation.
3. When the case was posted for hearing, the appellant sent a communication to the effect that the case might be decided on merits. Accordingly, the matter has been taken up for ex parte decision, after hearing Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR.
4. In regard to classification, the appellant in his written brief, submits that the impugned goods being in the nature of general purpose equipment are more appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 8536.10. In support of his contention, the appellant relied upon the decision of Tribunal in Sun Export Corporation v. C.C. Bombay - 1997(02)LCX0166 Eq 1997 (093) ELT 0421 (Trib.), Perfect Electric Concern Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna - 1997(02)LCX0179 Eq 1997 (093) ELT 0622 (Tri.) and English Electric Co., India v. C.C. Ex., Madras - 1996(11)LCX0164 Eq 1998 (101) ELT 0394 (Tri.). Countering the said contention, the ld. JDR argues that the subject goods are special purpose switches used with air-conditioning equipment and as such the same are rightly classifiable under sub-heading 9032.10 of the CTA. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions, leaflet and catalogue on record, and the case law cited supra, we find that the impugned goods are a special type of switch assembly which is nothing but a remote switch for air-conditioning and specific motor for evaporator system. As such, the Revenue has correctly classified the same under sub-heading 9032.10 of the CTA. Consequently, it must be held that the appellant has deliberately misdeclared the impugned goods.
5. Regarding the allegation of undervaluation, the appellant’s contention is two-fold-
(a) declared price in respect of similar and the same should be accepted for the impugned goods and the goods were accepted in the past; and
(b) reliance on the quantum of M/s. Precision Auto Airconditioning Co. Ltd. for the purpose of enhancing the price is improper. We find that these points were duly considered by the lower authorities. Taking note of the fact that there were no contemporaneous imports, the lower authority has rightly applied rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, while doing so, having regard to the year of import and the quantity of import, the original authority has allowed a discount of 30% on the price quoted by M/s. Precision Auto Airconditioning Company Pvt. Ltd.. We feel that the said decision of the original authority in arriving at a value under Rule 8 is quite reasonable and appropriate.
6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and accordingly, we uphold the decision contained therein. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.