9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Difference of opinion between Members of the bench regarding valuation of impugned goods. 2. Whether prices mentioned in the LME Bulletin can be the basis for enhancing the value of the goods. 3. Confiscation, redemption fines, and penalties imposed for mis-declaration and import without license. 4. Application of Transaction Value Method of Valuation. 5. Disagreement on the methods of valuation between Member (Technical) and Member (Judicial). 6. Need for re-hearing the appeal by a separate Bench. Analysis: 1. The disagreement between the Members of the bench revolves around the valuation of the impugned goods. Member (Judicial) seeks to set aside the order that enhanced the value of the consignments and imposed penalties, while Member (Technical) upholds the confiscation and penalty in the order. The differences extend beyond valuation to include mis-declaration of weight and import without a license. 2. The key question for consideration by the Third Member is whether the prices in the LME Bulletin alone can enhance the value of the goods, or if corroborative evidence is necessary. Member (Technical) supports dismissing the appeal based on LME Bulletin prices, while Member (Judicial) suggests allowing the appeal in the absence of such evidence. 3. The order imposed redemption fines and penalties for mis-declaration and import without a license. Member (Technical) upholds these penalties, while Member (Judicial) allows the appeal without discussing the confiscation and penalties, leading to a difference in their orders. 4. The application of the Transaction Value Method of Valuation is disputed, especially considering the mis-declaration of weight in the invoices. Member (Technical) supports the use of the residual method of valuation, while Member (Judicial) leans towards accepting the invoiced amounts despite them not representing the transaction value. 5. The disagreement between the Members extends to the methods of valuation, with Member (Technical) advocating for the residual method and rejecting other valuation methods, while Member (Judicial) suggests accepting the declared price in the invoices despite mis-declaration. 6. Due to the lack of unanimity on the points of difference and the suggestion for re-hearing by Member (Technical), the matter is referred for re-hearing by a fresh Bench to resolve the differences and address the issues comprehensively. The appeal is scheduled for re-hearing before the Circuit Bench in Hyderabad to ensure a fair and thorough examination of the case.
|
