9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allegation of undervaluation of imported goods. 2. Compliance with Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. 3. Application of judgments related to provisional assessment and valuation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellants imported computers from M/s. Tulip Computers Asia Ltd, Hong Kong. The Department alleged undervaluation based on the origin of the goods and discrepancies in prices compared to similar computers. The Department provisionally assessed the Bills of Entry pending investigation. Subsequently, final assessments were made by taking values declared by the appellants in different Bills of Entry. Due to discrepancies, the goods were confiscated, and penalties imposed. 2. The Advocate for the Appellants argued that there was no violation of Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. He cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a relevant case and defended the declared values as fair and based on market prices in India. The Advocate emphasized that the prices compared were from their own imports, ruling out any willful misstatement of prices. 3. The Departmental Representative contended that the declared prices did not reflect international trade prices and pointed out discrepancies in the declared values compared to actual market prices. It was highlighted that the country of origin was misrepresented, and essential documents like purchase orders and manufacturer's invoices were missing as required by the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Department relied on various judgments, including those by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to support their valuation methodology. 4. The Tribunal referred to judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases, emphasizing the Department's authority to gather necessary facts for finalizing provisional assessments. The Tribunal upheld the valuation but set aside the penalties, considering the case as a finalization of provisional assessment. The judgment was pronounced on 26-4-2005.
|
