9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of imported goods based on actual transportation cost.
Analysis: 1. Adjournment Request: The respondent's absence and adjournment requests were considered due to the unavailability of their advocate. However, as no formal request was made by the advocate, the adjournment was declined. 2. Imported Goods Valuation: The respondent imported licorice roots with a declared value of US $5,500 CIF, but investigations revealed the actual transportation cost was US $5,000 instead of the declared US $1,173. The importer accepted the total value of the consignment to be US $9,327. The Additional Collector revised the assessable value to Rs. 2.94 lakhs, confiscated the goods, imposed a fine of Rs. 1.50 lakhs, and a penalty of Rs. 50,000. 3. Appeal and Commissioner's Decision: The importer appealed, arguing that only the declared freight of US $1,173 should be considered based on Rule 9(2) of the Valuation Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed, citing the GATT Valuation Code commentary. However, the actual transportation cost was US $5,000, which the Valuation Rules required to be added. 4. Judgment: The Tribunal found that the increased freight was mutually agreed upon by the buyer and seller, not due to a mistake by the supplier. As the actual transportation cost was not disclosed, the confiscation of goods and penalties were deemed justified. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the previous order, and reinstated the Additional Collector's decision. This detailed analysis covers the issues related to the valuation of imported goods based on the actual transportation cost, the legal interpretations of the Valuation Rules and GATT Valuation Code, and the Tribunal's decision in this case.
|
