BHARUCHA - (1.) THE respondents imported two consignment of cups which are parts of taper roller bearings. THEy filed bills of entry for clearance classifying the goods under entry 8482.99 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and claimed the benefit of the concessional rate of duty provided by an Exemption Notification (No. 70/89)
(2.) THE relevant part of the Exemption Notification reads thus : "6. Parts of goods covered by Sl.No.5 above namely JUDGEMENT_42_10_1996Html1.htm Serial No.5 therein referred to relates to "roller bearings of all types". The goods, according to the appellants, were correctly classifiable under Sl.No.6(a) above, whereas the respondents wanted the benefit of classification under Sl.No.6(c). The respondents filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The goods were allowed to be cleared by the High Court on the basis of a provisional assessment extending the benefit to the respondents of Sl.No.6(c). The appellants preferred a Special Leave Petition to this Court; therein the appellants were directed to issue a show cause notice to the respondents and finalise the assessment of the goods by 6/09/1991.
(3.) A notice in this behalf was issued. The respondents were heard and the Collector of Customs (Judicial) made an order on 30/08/1991. He held that the goods were covered by Sl.No.6(c) and not Sl.No.6(a). For the purpose of valuation, he rejected the transaction value of the goods inasmuch as the goods had been imported from a trader in Hongkong and the price list of the manufacturer of the goods had not been produced. The transaction value of the goods was ridiculously low when compared to the c.i.f. value of different brands of similar goods. In the Collector's view, the transaction value was, in the circumstances, unacceptable. The Collector noted the price list of imported bearings of Chinese, Russian, Czechoslovakian and German origin and, by arduous reasoning, concluded that one set of the goods should be valued at Rs.5.64 per cup and the other set at Rs.21.38 per cup. The respondents appealed to the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal against the Collector's findings on classification and valuation. The appellants preferred an appeal in regard to penalty and fine (with which we are not here concerned).;