9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported goods, challenge to price list, consideration of Notification No. 94/96.
Valuation of Imported Goods: The appeal addressed the under-valuation of Indian origin goods imported into India, emphasizing that the price of re-imported goods should not be lower than the export price. The appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their claim that the invoice price reflected the transaction value. The Department provided the manufacturer's price, shifting the burden onto the appellants to disprove it and present evidence of contemporaneous imports for valuation. The absence of evidence led to reliance on the manufacturer's price for determining the assessable value. The appellants were directed to pay duty on the determined value due to undervaluation, leading to confiscation of goods and penalties. However, the redemption fine and penalty were reduced based on the circumstances of the case. Challenge to Price List: The party challenged the price list relied upon by the Department, highlighting the lack of a clear finding regarding its applicability to India or outside. The absence of a clear determination on whether the price list was challenged or not raised discrepancies. The party claimed that a copy of the price list was not provided but was shown during adjudication. Due to these discrepancies and the absence of a clear finding on the price list and the benefit under Notification No. 94/96, the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The adjudicating authority was instructed to reexamine the issue, allowing the party to substantiate their claim and directing the Department to provide a copy of the price list to the appellants. A timeline of 3 months was set for the adjudicating authority to issue a new order. Consideration of Notification No. 94/96: The benefit under Notification No. 94/96 was claimed by the party but not considered in the original order. The contention arose as to whether the party had indeed claimed this benefit, as there was no reference to it in the initial judgment. The lack of clarity on this aspect contributed to the decision to remand the matter for further examination, ensuring that all relevant claims and benefits were properly addressed during the reconsideration process.
|
